From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8D4D460D0; Tue, 21 Jan 2025 09:57:26 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67C7742D26; Tue, 21 Jan 2025 09:57:26 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-il1-f172.google.com (mail-il1-f172.google.com [209.85.166.172]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E9B6427C6 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2025 09:57:25 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-il1-f172.google.com with SMTP id e9e14a558f8ab-3a9628d20f0so40085825ab.2 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2025 00:57:25 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind.com; s=google; t=1737449844; x=1738054644; darn=dpdk.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=LlRfbyc7SD5F8n7crifNVezb+r1A+1qolMl5vyguPeo=; b=YduT+wcPbHZEpCg/luX2/Z2WHkcXxVYi16UBk5wwB+8Q7+53INHesCX9ALWJ44lirE obSOGIfUuPj+O18aHN9bKKm4kXTnlb+p05lKkwvIHvKWeuYQUhAZAMt4VzK+wqkoxbEr RStWJP5kV//OrBn1GaAwDPf8m9kuFxRJ63Ij4YjJhxzr7bcDmWzhpYc74mnz3OswpcV+ ougDnBZYrYktDpkAUfuX8J3UpyKejzmCOBvYlBdu/WSJmexVMDBYqDu9wPNWkhTwNfFr HHdWFJZtajRW8/Xs2Z8nhT0yU9EqMU3j2l5TQZC0VlF0ofvqbCiwFk4kDUWbam/9fGUN Rg2A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1737449844; x=1738054644; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=LlRfbyc7SD5F8n7crifNVezb+r1A+1qolMl5vyguPeo=; b=oSqsLLccfX6CCgmw/G4PzDStUurFdCVzQ2AuwmdwSZgjmzMBPMslDDP8vb837Rd9DL FjmSg1FuF8VChDeel02YcQtVEnm5tuw83c1TCq9o0UiOH7QrQvJ91ntXt2h8z6Wn2R5T 0ubl+bMPi4ElnberRx3NSqOS1xSyZZhoiiFaAteWkzABCP4YNoh+LKqLpx6G5hICi7L9 VQizbGgB+ybFJUtW/AH6YcXBUP6uaVnAksgJzVamaYzZNtZi4Qrx5y6FY9fBB4hcRTv3 p1Qs8DBonAvbcr8XRJUjuAX0K/YZibtXgBe5MwaLo3Nz8jBffcReRgXEuOEbufd3lEoc oNcQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzK6YLjQ1dG3D4qkUL76JIgLVHD2BV2HLOyPERw6OK5Bi1MAwRI gmEXOQedZHCK1zE2hvTFK2Noch2HgaQT+8SyFaW/XLpBD7XSocEaFyA6bE/9zmLXgQGDbh7N3ri IqktV8Tf6Cdzy88lbgfDrbZuCfqm7AqfQU2W/UA== X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncv5/ryr16bVSkdCpeSlRz5RlMnpjg9O6+97uRDbzcFn+GQwDQZ/bVt1F0WrJNy ndpatnRCidhuaeK/Ud0/RCMhQqlUzIOjqQc5H6B7Li+j936r/tGAmhYT4riFExz+gYlXAwjlfF9 tvHRcP X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEOhi3ELf+a6ScHNtbQScps3k5xhOsdO3EpOi0GPlVeUJkpam4PDVsCef6/EJQI2DXoI3H+Z+U0ZLIv/JnaUw0= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:1c88:b0:3a7:1bfc:97c6 with SMTP id e9e14a558f8ab-3cf744953f7mr113768635ab.16.1737449844410; Tue, 21 Jan 2025 00:57:24 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20250116195640.68885-1-ariel.otilibili@6wind.com> <20250116225151.188214-1-ariel.otilibili@6wind.com> <20250116225151.188214-3-ariel.otilibili@6wind.com> <44ffb73b-427d-4ddf-a195-900e05241050@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <44ffb73b-427d-4ddf-a195-900e05241050@redhat.com> From: Ariel Otilibili Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2025 09:57:13 +0100 X-Gm-Features: AbW1kvZzovVbfBTriadA5NBZ0k342y21HMYW0RVrKDclZznx0CvFzo-l-9egsiM Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] net/af_xdp: Refactor af_xdp_tx_zc() To: Maryam Tahhan Cc: dev@dpdk.org, stable@dpdk.org, Stephen Hemminger , Thomas Monjalon , David Marchand , Ciara Loftus Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cab00e062c33909a" X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org --000000000000cab00e062c33909a Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Maryam, On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 4:28=E2=80=AFPM Maryam Tahhan = wrote: > > On 16/01/2025 17:51, Ariel Otilibili wrote: > This ends up duplicating the if condition `if (mbuf->pool =3D=3D > umem->mb_pool) {` twice in `af_xdp_tx_zc`. Which is messy to read tbh... > > I think it would be better to create an inline function for the > duplicate code that setting desc, addr and offset. These three things > could be pointers passed to the new inline function and that way their > values can be used in `af_xdp_tx_zc()` after they are set. I think that > would cleanup the `af_xdp_tx_zc()` function in a neater way. > Thanks for having looked into this patch. I'll improve the series on your feedback. --000000000000cab00e062c33909a Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Maryam,

On Mo= n, Jan 20, 2025 at 4:28=E2=80=AFPM Maryam Tahhan <mtahhan@redhat.com> wrote:

On 16/01/2025 17:51, Ariel Otilibili wrote:
This ends up duplicating the if condition `if (mbuf->pool =3D=3D
umem->mb_pool) {` twice in `af_xdp_tx_zc`. Which is messy to read tbh...=

I think it would be better to create an inline function for the
duplicate code that setting desc, addr and offset. These three things
could be pointers passed to the new inline function and that way their
values can be used in `af_xdp_tx_zc()` after they are set. I think that would cleanup the `af_xdp_tx_zc()` function in a neater way.
=C2=A0
Thanks for having looked into this patch. I'll improve the= series on your feedback.
--000000000000cab00e062c33909a--