On 2018/09/11 1:21, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
>>> @@ -707,6 +731,26 @@ static int netsec_process_rx(struct netsec_priv *priv,
>>> int budget)
>>> if (unlikely(!buf_addr))
>>> break;
>>>
>>> + if (xdp_prog) {
>>> + xdp_result = netsec_run_xdp(desc, priv, xdp_prog,
>>> + pkt_len);
>>> + if (xdp_result != NETSEC_XDP_PASS) {
>>> + xdp_flush |= xdp_result & NETSEC_XDP_REDIR;
>>> +
>>> + dma_unmap_single_attrs(priv->dev,
>>> + desc->dma_addr,
>>> + desc->len, DMA_TO_DEVICE,
>>> + DMA_ATTR_SKIP_CPU_SYNC);
>>> +
>>> + desc->len = desc_len;
>>> + desc->dma_addr = dma_handle;
>>> + desc->addr = buf_addr;
>>> + netsec_rx_fill(priv, idx, 1);
>>> + nsetsec_adv_desc(&dring->tail);
>>> + }
>>> + continue;
>>
>> Continue even on XDP_PASS? Is this really correct?
>>
>> Also seems there is no handling of adjust_head/tail for XDP_PASS case.
>>
> A question on this. Should XDP related frames be allocated using 1 page
> per packet?
AFAIK there is no such constraint, e.g. i40e allocates 1 page per 2 packets.
--
Toshiaki Makita
