On 06/05/2018 10:44 AM, Björn Töpel wrote: > Den tis 5 juni 2018 kl 03:46 skrev Alexander Duyck > <alexander.du...@gmail.com>: >> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 4:32 PM, Alexei Starovoitov >> <alexei.starovoi...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 03:02:31PM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote: >>>> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 2:27 PM, David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> wrote: >>>>> From: Or Gerlitz <gerlitz...@gmail.com> >>>>> Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 00:11:35 +0300 >>>>> >>>>>> Just to make sure, is the AF_XDP ZC (Zero Copy) UAPI going to be >>>>>> merged for this window -- AFAIU from [1], it's still under >>>>>> examination/development/research for non Intel HWs, am I correct or >>>>>> this is going to get in now? >>>>> >>>>> All of the pending AF_XDP changes will be merged this merge window. >>>>> >>>>> I think Intel folks need to review things as fast as possible because >>>>> I pretty much refuse to revert the series or disable it in Kconfig at >>>>> this point. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you. >>>> >>>> My understanding of things is that the current AF_XDP patches were >>>> going to be updated to have more of a model agnostic API such that >>>> they would work for either the "typewriter" mode or the descriptor >>>> ring based approach. The current plan was to have the zero copy >>>> patches be a follow-on after the vendor agnostic API bits in the >>>> descriptors and such had been sorted out. I believe you guys have the >>>> descriptor fixes already right? >>>> >>>> In my opinion the i40e code isn't mature enough yet to really go into >>>> anything other than maybe net-next in a couple weeks. We are going to >>>> need a while to get adequate testing in order to flush out all the >>>> bugs and performance regressions we are likely to see coming out of >>>> this change. >>> >>> I think the work everyone did in this release cycle increased my confidence >>> that the way descriptors are defined and the rest of uapi are stable enough >>> and i40e zero copy bits can land in the next release without uapi changes. >>> In that sense even if we merge i40e parts now, the other nic vendors >>> will be in the same situation and may find things that they would like >>> to improve in uapi. >>> So I propose we merge the first 7 patches of the last series now and >>> let 3 remaining i40e patches go via intel trees for the next release. >>> In the mean time other NIC vendors should start actively working >>> on AF_XDP support as well. >>> If somehow uapi would need tweaks, we can still do minor adjustments >>> since 4.18 won't be released for ~10 weeks. >> >> That works for me. Actually I think patch 11 can probably be included >> as well since that is just sample code and could probably be used by >> whatever drivers end up implementing this. > > The approach suggested by Alexei and Alex sounds good to us. Alex's > review items are very much valid, and require more time to address. > Therefore addressing i40e in the next merge windows sounds like a > great idea. > > As Alex suggests, including patch 11 together with the first seven makes > sense.
Ok with it as well, and I've pushed just that, thanks everyone!
