On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 12:29:15 +0300
Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodi...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 11:25:24AM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 12:02:38 +0300
> > Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodi...@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > > static const struct net_device_ops netsec_netdev_ops = {
> > > .ndo_init = netsec_netdev_init,
> > > .ndo_uninit = netsec_netdev_uninit,
> > > @@ -1430,6 +1627,7 @@ static const struct net_device_ops
> > > netsec_netdev_ops = {
> > > .ndo_set_mac_address = eth_mac_addr,
> > > .ndo_validate_addr = eth_validate_addr,
> > > .ndo_do_ioctl = netsec_netdev_ioctl,
> > > + .ndo_bpf = netsec_xdp,
> > > };
> > >
> >
> > You have not implemented ndo_xdp_xmit.
> >
> > Thus, you have "only" implemented the RX side of XDP_REDIRECT. Which
> > allows you to do, cpumap and AF_XDP redirects, but not allowing other
> > drivers to XDP send out this device.
>
> Correct, that was the planning, is ndo_xdp_xmit() needed for the patch or
> is the patch message just misleading and i should change that ?
Yes, I think you should ALSO implement ndo_xdp_xmit, maybe as a separate
patch, but in the same series. (Our experience is that if we don't
require this, people forget to complete this part of the XDP support).
Also you XDP_TX is not optimal, as it (looks like) you flush TX on
every send.
BTW, do you have any performance numbers?
--
Best regards,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer
MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
