On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 2:37 AM Eelco Chaudron <echau...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 21 Jun 2019, at 21:13, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 8:26 AM Eelco Chaudron <echau...@redhat.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> When an AF_XDP application received X packets, it does not mean X
> >> frames can be stuffed into the producer ring. To make it easier for
> >> AF_XDP applications this API allows them to check how many frames can
> >> be added into the ring.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Eelco Chaudron <echau...@redhat.com>
> >> ---
> >> tools/lib/bpf/xsk.h | 6 ++++++
> >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/xsk.h b/tools/lib/bpf/xsk.h
> >> index 82ea71a0f3ec..86f3d485e957 100644
> >> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/xsk.h
> >> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/xsk.h
> >> @@ -95,6 +95,12 @@ static inline __u32 xsk_prod_nb_free(struct
> >> xsk_ring_prod *r, __u32 nb)
> >> return r->cached_cons - r->cached_prod;
> >> }
> >>
> >> +static inline __u32 xsk_ring_prod__free(struct xsk_ring_prod *r)
> >
> > This is a very bad name choice. __free is used for functions that free
> > memory and resources. One function below I see avail is used in the
> > name, why not xsk_ring_prog__avail?
>
> Must agree that free sound like you are freeing entries… However, I
> just kept the naming already in the API/file (see above,
> xsk_prod_nb_free()).
> Reading the code there is a difference as xx_avail() means available
> filled entries, where xx_free() means available free entries.
>
> So I could rename it to xsk_ring_prod__nb_free() maybe?
I'm fine with __nb_free, yes. Thanks!
>
> Forgot to include Magnus in the email, so copied him in, for some
> comments.
>
> >> +{
> >> + r->cached_cons = *r->consumer + r->size;
> >> + return r->cached_cons - r->cached_prod;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> static inline __u32 xsk_cons_nb_avail(struct xsk_ring_cons *r, __u32
> >> nb)
> >> {
> >> __u32 entries = r->cached_prod - r->cached_cons;
> >> --
> >> 2.20.1
> >>
