> This version of the patch is garbled in patchwork which means the CI test
> never
> ran because patch would not apply.
>
> You need cleanup and resubmit it.
I have sent v5 on behalf of Alan.
On 5/1/2024 8:43 AM, Morten Brørup wrote:
>> From: Alan Elder [mailto:alan.el...@microsoft.com]
>> Sent: Monday, 15 April 2024 16.41
>>
>> The previous code allowed the number of Tx queues to be set higher than the
>> number of Rx queues. If a packet was sent on a Tx queue with index
>>> = number
> From: Alan Elder [mailto:alan.el...@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Monday, 15 April 2024 16.41
>
> The previous code allowed the number of Tx queues to be set higher than the
> number of Rx queues. If a packet was sent on a Tx queue with index
> >= number Rx queues there was a segfault due to accessing
> This introduced additional check in Rx path, not sure what is the performance
> impact.
>
> I can see Long already acked the v3, I just want to double check.
> If Tx queue number > Rx queue number is not a common usecase, perhaps it can
> be an option to forbid it instead of getting performanc
On 4/15/2024 3:40 PM, Alan Elder wrote:
> The previous code allowed the number of Tx queues to be set higher than the
> number of Rx queues. If a packet was sent on a Tx queue with index
>> = number Rx queues there was a segfault due to accessing beyond the end of
>> the dev->data->rx_queues[] a
5 matches
Mail list logo
