On 24 Jun 2019, at 18:42, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
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!
Ok, will rework the patch and use xsk_ring_prod__nb_free(). Will also
take Magnus suggestion into account, and create a cached version (and
use it internally).
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
