Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Alexander Lobakin <alexandr.lobakin@intel.com>
To:     Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@microchip.com>
Cc:     Alexander Lobakin <alexander.lobakin@intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        bpf@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com,
        kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, ast@kernel.org,
        daniel@iogearbox.net, hawk@kernel.org, john.fastabend@gmail.com,
        linux@armlinux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/4] net: lan966x: Add basic XDP support
Date:   Mon,  7 Nov 2022 17:13:57 +0100
Message-Id: <20221107161357.556549-1-alexandr.lobakin@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <20221106211154.3225784-4-horatiu.vultur@microchip.com>
References: <20221106211154.3225784-1-horatiu.vultur@microchip.com> <20221106211154.3225784-4-horatiu.vultur@microchip.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

From: Alexander Lobakin <alexander.lobakin@intel.com>

From: Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@microchip.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2022 22:11:53 +0100

> Introduce basic XDP support to lan966x driver. Currently the driver
> supports only the actions XDP_PASS, XDP_DROP and XDP_ABORTED.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@microchip.com>
> ---
>  .../net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/Makefile   |  3 +-
>  .../ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_fdma.c | 11 ++-
>  .../ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_main.c |  5 ++
>  .../ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_main.h | 13 +++
>  .../ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_xdp.c  | 81 +++++++++++++++++++
>  5 files changed, 111 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_xdp.c

[...]

> +bool lan966x_xdp_port_present(struct lan966x_port *port)
> +{
> +	return !!port->xdp_prog;
> +}

Why uninline such a simple check? I realize you want to keep all XDP
stuff inside in the separate file, but doesn't this one looks too
much?

> +
> +int lan966x_xdp_port_init(struct lan966x_port *port)
> +{
> +	struct lan966x *lan966x = port->lan966x;
> +
> +	return xdp_rxq_info_reg(&port->xdp_rxq, port->dev, 0,
> +				lan966x->napi.napi_id);
> +}
> +
> +void lan966x_xdp_port_deinit(struct lan966x_port *port)
> +{
> +	if (xdp_rxq_info_is_reg(&port->xdp_rxq))
> +		xdp_rxq_info_unreg(&port->xdp_rxq);
> +}
> -- 
> 2.38.0

Thanks,
Olek