RE: [PATCH v3 1/2] net/gve: fix Rx no mbufs stats counter update

["Guo, Junfeng" <junfeng.guo@intel.com>]

Acked-by: Junfeng Guo <junfeng.guo@intel.com>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@amd.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 18:31
> To: Levend Sayar <levendsayar@gmail.com>
> Cc: Guo, Junfeng <junfeng.guo@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Stephen
> Hemminger <stephen@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.yigit@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.guo@intel.com
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Levend Sayar <levendsayar@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?
> >