Re: [PATCH v4] aquantia: Remove the build_skb path

2020-11-23 Thread Jakub Kicinski
On Sun, 22 Nov 2020 22:36:22 + Ramsay, Lincoln wrote: > > (Next time please include in the subject the tree that you're targetting > > the patch) > > I guess you mean like [PATCH master v5] ? Should I be targeting > something other than the master branch on the main git repo? > (https://gith

Re: [PATCH v4] aquantia: Remove the build_skb path

2020-11-22 Thread Ramsay, Lincoln
> (Next time please include in the subject the tree that you're targetting > the patch) I guess you mean like [PATCH master v5] ? Should I be targeting something other than the master branch on the main git repo? (https://github.com/torvalds/linux.git) > please add a From: line at the beginning

Re: [PATCH v4] aquantia: Remove the build_skb path

2020-11-22 Thread Ramsay, Lincoln
> Align continuations of the lines under '(' like: Oh... I didn't run the patch checker over this revised patch. In this case, I am only changing the leading indent. Am I still expected to satisfy the patch checker? The current patch is very clear about what is happening if you do a diff -w but

Re: [PATCH v4] aquantia: Remove the build_skb path

2020-11-21 Thread Jakub Kicinski
On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 13:22:04 -0800 Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 23:52:55 + Ramsay, Lincoln wrote: > > When performing IPv6 forwarding, there is an expectation that SKBs > > will have some headroom. When forwarding a packet from the aquantia > > driver, this does not always happen

Re: [PATCH v4] aquantia: Remove the build_skb path

2020-11-21 Thread Jakub Kicinski
On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 23:52:55 + Ramsay, Lincoln wrote: > When performing IPv6 forwarding, there is an expectation that SKBs > will have some headroom. When forwarding a packet from the aquantia > driver, this does not always happen, triggering a kernel warning. > > aq_ring.c has this code (edit

Re: [PATCH v4] aquantia: Remove the build_skb path

2020-11-19 Thread Ramsay, Lincoln
> > I don't know about benefits/feasibility, but I did wonder if (in the event > > that the "fast path" is possible), the dma_mapping could use an offset? The > > page would include the skb header but the dma mapping would not. If that > > was done though, only 1 RX frame would fit into the page

Re: [PATCH v4] aquantia: Remove the build_skb path

2020-11-19 Thread Florian Westphal
Ramsay, Lincoln wrote: [ patch looks good to me, I have no further comments ] > > For build_skb path to work the buffer scheme would need to be changed > > to reserve headroom, so yes, I think that the proposed patch is the > > most convenient solution. > > I don't know about benefits/feasibili

[PATCH v4] aquantia: Remove the build_skb path

2020-11-19 Thread Ramsay, Lincoln
When performing IPv6 forwarding, there is an expectation that SKBs will have some headroom. When forwarding a packet from the aquantia driver, this does not always happen, triggering a kernel warning. aq_ring.c has this code (edited slightly for brevity): if (buff->is_eop && buff->len <= AQ_CFG_R