On 11/14/17 4:20 AM, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
* Limit the scope of the first patchset to Rx only, and introduce Tx
in a separate patchset.
all sounds good to me except above bit.
I don't remember people suggesting to split it this way.
What's the value of it without tx?
We definitely need Tx for our use-cases! I'll rephrase, so the
idea was making the initial patch set without Tx *driver*
specific code, e.g. use ndo_xdp_xmit/flush at a later point.
So AF_ZEROCOPY, the socket parts, would have Tx support.
@John Did I recall that correctly?
Yep, that is what I said. However, on second thought, without the
driver tx half I guess tx will be significantly slower.
The idea was that existing packet rings already send without
copying, so the benefit from device driver changes is not obvious.
I would leave them out for now and evaluate before possibly
sending a separate patchset.
are you suggesting to use new af_zerocopy for rx and old
af_packet for tx ? imo that's too cumbersome to use.
New interface has to be symmetrical from the start.
