On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 07:51:09 -0700 Ahmed Zaki wrote:
> On 2024-12-19 8:42 p.m., Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 09:58:39 -0700 Ahmed Zaki wrote:
> >> + if (!glue_created && flags & NAPIF_IRQ_AFFINITY) {
> >> + glue = kzalloc(sizeof(*glue), GFP_KERNEL);
> >> + if (!glue)
> >> + return;
> >> + glue->notify.notify = netif_irq_cpu_rmap_notify;
> >> + glue->notify.release = netif_napi_affinity_release;
> >> + glue->data = napi;
> >> + glue->rmap = NULL;
> >> + napi->irq_flags |= NAPIF_IRQ_NORMAP;
> >
> > Why allocate the glue? is it not possible to add the fields:
> >
> > struct irq_affinity_notify notify;
> > u16 index;
> >
> > to struct napi_struct ?
>
> In the first branch of "if", the cb function netif_irq_cpu_rmap_notify()
> is also passed to irq_cpu_rmap_add() where the irq notifier is embedded
> in "struct irq_glue".
I don't understand what you're trying to say, could you rephrase?
> I think this cannot be changed as long as some drivers are directly
> calling irq_cpu_rmap_add() instead of the proposed API.
Drivers which are not converted shouldn't matter if we have our own
notifier and call cpu_rmap_update() directly, no?
Drivers which are converted should not call irq_cpu_rmap_add().
