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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230410120629.642955-1-kal.conley@dectris.com>
 <20230410120629.642955-3-kal.conley@dectris.com> <CAJ8uoz0NczOxbs7xqwC4B9YDP5fN1oECBi53yHoaZbvTxcm_fg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHApi-kp5FVfHm4tVObbOz7yu6o7PjaFLw8XgLB0OFY=pSuaKg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHApi-kp5FVfHm4tVObbOz7yu6o7PjaFLw8XgLB0OFY=pSuaKg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 12 Apr 2023 17:02:14 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJ8uoz3=hPW7sTzq=aroZkrOdQSNfjZjEQHQRe0uZmKSHnDkNA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 2/4] xsk: Support UMEM chunk_size > PAGE_SIZE
To:     Kal Cutter Conley <kal.conley@dectris.com>
Cc:     Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@intel.com>,
        =?UTF-8?B?QmrDtnJuIFTDtnBlbA==?= <bjorn@kernel.org>,
        Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com>,
        Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@gmail.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@kernel.org>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 at 16:30, Kal Cutter Conley <kal.conley@dectris.com> wrote:
>
> > > -       pool->unaligned = unaligned;
> > >         pool->frame_len = umem->chunk_size - umem->headroom -
> > >                 XDP_PACKET_HEADROOM;
> > > +       pool->unaligned = unaligned;
> >
> > nit: This change is not necessary.
>
> Do you mind if we keep it? It makes the assignments better match the
> order in the struct declaration.

Do not mind.

> > > -static void xp_check_dma_contiguity(struct xsk_dma_map *dma_map)
> > > +static void xp_check_dma_contiguity(struct xsk_dma_map *dma_map, u32 page_size)
> > >  {
> > >         u32 i;
> > >
> > > -       for (i = 0; i < dma_map->dma_pages_cnt - 1; i++) {
> > > -               if (dma_map->dma_pages[i] + PAGE_SIZE == dma_map->dma_pages[i + 1])
> > > +       for (i = 0; i + 1 < dma_map->dma_pages_cnt; i++) {
> >
> > I think the previous version is clearer than this new one.
>
> I like using `i + 1` since it matches the subscript usage. I'm used to
> writing it like this for SIMD code where subtraction may wrap if the
> length is unsigned, that doesn't matter in this case though. I can
> restore the old way if you want.

Please restore it in that case. I am not used to SIMD code :-).