On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 19:22:02 +0000 Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-09-08 at 20:29 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > From: David Miller <da...@davemloft.net>
> > Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2020 20:28:36 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> > > From: Saeed Mahameed <sae...@nvidia.com>
> > > Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2020 18:27:48 -0700
> > >
> > > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tx.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tx.c
> > > > @@ -232,6 +232,29 @@ mlx5e_txwqe_build_dsegs(struct mlx5e_txqsq
> > > > *sq, struct sk_buff *skb,
> > > > return -ENOMEM;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > +static inline bool mlx5e_transport_inline_tx_wqe(struct
> > > > mlx5_wqe_ctrl_seg *cseg)
> > > > +{
> > > > + return cseg && !!cseg->tis_tir_num;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static inline u8
> > > > +mlx5e_tx_wqe_inline_mode(struct mlx5e_txqsq *sq, struct
> > > > mlx5_wqe_ctrl_seg *cseg,
> > > > + struct sk_buff *skb)
> > > > +{
> > >
> > > No inlines in foo.c files, please.
> >
> > I see you're doing this even more later in this series.
> >
> > Please fix all of this up, thank you.
>
> Maxim really tried here to avoid this without huge performance
> degradation (~6.4% reduce in packet rate), due to the refactoring
> patches gcc yields non optimal code, as we explained in the commit
> messages and cover-letter
>
> Our other option is making the code very ugly with no code reuse in the
> tx path, so we would really appreciate if you could relax the no-inline
> guideline for this series.
Why are you requesting a whole pass on the series when only _some_
inlines make a difference here?
