Messages in this thread | | | From | Alexander Lobakin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/4] net: lan966x: Add basic XDP support | Date | Mon, 7 Nov 2022 17:13:57 +0100 |
| |
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
| |