On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 11:36:31 -0400 Mina Almasry wrote:
> Additionally I'm wondering if we should disable adding mp-bound
> devices as slaves completely, regardless of xdp. My concern is that if
> the lower device is using unreadable memory, then the upper device may
> see unreadable memory in its c
On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 12:36 AM Mina Almasry wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 5:15 AM Taehee Yoo wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 1:01 PM Mina Almasry wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 6:53 PM Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 00:44:27 +0900 Taehee Yoo
On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 5:15 AM Taehee Yoo wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 1:01 PM Mina Almasry wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 6:53 PM Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 00:44:27 +0900 Taehee Yoo wrote:
> > > > > @@ -9537,6 +9540,10 @@ static int dev_xdp_attach(stru
On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 1:01 PM Mina Almasry wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 6:53 PM Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 00:44:27 +0900 Taehee Yoo wrote:
> > > > @@ -9537,6 +9540,10 @@ static int dev_xdp_attach(struct net_device
> > > > *dev, struct netlink_ext_ack *extack
> > >
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 13:11:20 -0400 Mina Almasry wrote:
> > Protecting the stack from unreadable memory is *the* challenge
> > in this series. The rest is a fairly straightforward.
>
> Understandable. I pulled the trigger on v21 with the build fix last
> night after reading your response on the o
On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 11:19 AM Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 00:01:02 -0400 Mina Almasry wrote:
> > Took a bit of a look here. Forgive me, I'm not that familiar with XDP
> > and virtual interfaces, so I'm a bit unsure what to do here.
> >
> > For veth, it seems, the device behind
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 00:01:02 -0400 Mina Almasry wrote:
> Took a bit of a look here. Forgive me, I'm not that familiar with XDP
> and virtual interfaces, so I'm a bit unsure what to do here.
>
> For veth, it seems, the device behind the veth is stored in
> veth_priv->peer, so it seems maybe a dev_g
On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 6:53 PM Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>
> On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 00:44:27 +0900 Taehee Yoo wrote:
> > > @@ -9537,6 +9540,10 @@ static int dev_xdp_attach(struct net_device *dev,
> > > struct netlink_ext_ack *extack
> > > NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, "Native and gener
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 00:44:27 +0900 Taehee Yoo wrote:
> > @@ -9537,6 +9540,10 @@ static int dev_xdp_attach(struct net_device *dev,
> > struct netlink_ext_ack *extack
> > NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, "Native and generic XDP
> > can't be active at the same time");
> >
On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 6:13 AM Mina Almasry wrote:
>
> Add a netdev_dmabuf_binding struct which represents the
> dma-buf-to-netdevice binding. The netlink API will bind the dma-buf to
> rx queues on the netdevice. On the binding, the dma_buf_attach
> & dma_buf_map_attachment will occur. The entri
On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 8:48 PM Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 21:13:05 + Mina Almasry wrote:
> > +int dev_get_max_mp_channel(const struct net_device *dev)
> > +{
> > + int i, max = -1;
>
> I presume the bug from yesterday is self evident once reported? :)
>
Yes, my apologi
On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 21:13:05 + Mina Almasry wrote:
> + if (NL_REQ_ATTR_CHECK(info->extack, attr, tb,
> + NETDEV_A_QUEUE_ID)) {
> + err = -EINVAL;
> + goto err_unlock;
> + }
> +
> + if (
On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 21:13:05 + Mina Almasry wrote:
> +int dev_get_max_mp_channel(const struct net_device *dev)
> +{
> + int i, max = -1;
I presume the bug from yesterday is self evident once reported? :)
> + ASSERT_RTNL();
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < dev->real_num_rx_queues; i++)
> +
Add a netdev_dmabuf_binding struct which represents the
dma-buf-to-netdevice binding. The netlink API will bind the dma-buf to
rx queues on the netdevice. On the binding, the dma_buf_attach
& dma_buf_map_attachment will occur. The entries in the sg_table from
mapping will be inserted into a genpool
14 matches
Mail list logo
