Thanks Junfeng for acknowledging.
> On 23 Feb 2023, at 07:34, Guo, Junfeng <junfeng....@intel.com> wrote:
>
> Acked-by: Junfeng Guo <junfeng....@intel.com <mailto:junfeng....@intel.com>>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@amd.com <mailto:ferruh.yi...@amd.com>>
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 18:31
>> To: Levend Sayar <levendsa...@gmail.com <mailto:levendsa...@gmail.com>>
>> Cc: Guo, Junfeng <junfeng....@intel.com <mailto:junfeng....@intel.com>>;
>> dev@dpdk.org <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>; Stephen
>> Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org <mailto:step...@networkplumber.org>>
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] net/gve: fix Rx no mbufs stats counter update
>>
>> On 2/21/2023 10:07 AM, Levend Sayar wrote:
>>> Not only this if, there can be many places to add such branch prediction
>> helpers
>>> On the gve pmd code.
>>>
>>> I preferred to patch only the bug here and not used unlikely to minimize
>> noise.
>>>
>>> Imho, adding likely/unlikely to all gve pmd code can be topic of another
>> patch maybe.
>
> Agreed.
> Adding likely/unlikely is more related to the performance with compiler.
> This can be an optimization for performance. Thanks!
>
>>>
>>
>> ack, sounds reasonable to me
>>
>>> Levend
>>>
>>>> On 21 Feb 2023, at 01:57, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@amd.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/20/2023 9:11 PM, Levend Sayar wrote:
>>>>> rx no_mbufs stats counter update is added for another error case.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixes: 4f6b1dd8240c ("net/gve: support basic statistics")
>>>>> Cc: junfeng....@intel.com
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Levend Sayar <levendsa...@gmail.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/net/gve/gve_rx.c | 5 ++++-
>>>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/gve/gve_rx.c b/drivers/net/gve/gve_rx.c
>>>>> index 66fbcf3930..d346efa57c 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/net/gve/gve_rx.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/gve/gve_rx.c
>>>>> @@ -61,7 +61,10 @@ gve_rx_refill(struct gve_rx_queue *rxq)
>>>>> break;
>>>>> rxq->sw_ring[idx + i] = nmb;
>>>>> }
>>>>> - nb_alloc = i;
>>>>> + if (i != nb_alloc) {
>>>>> + rxq->no_mbufs += nb_alloc - i;
>>>>> + nb_alloc = i;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> }
>>>>> rxq->nb_avail -= nb_alloc;
>>>>> next_avail += nb_alloc;
>>>>
>>>> Looks good to me,
>>>> there was a comment from Stephen to add 'unlikely()', is that issue
>>>> resolved?
