>>>> >>>> * Limit the scope of the first patchset to Rx only, and introduce Tx >>>> in a separate patchset. >>> >>> >>> all sounds good to me except above bit. >>> I don't remember people suggesting to split it this way. >>> What's the value of it without tx? >>> >> >> We definitely need Tx for our use-cases! I'll rephrase, so the >> idea was making the initial patch set without Tx *driver* >> specific code, e.g. use ndo_xdp_xmit/flush at a later point. >> >> So AF_ZEROCOPY, the socket parts, would have Tx support. >> >> @John Did I recall that correctly? >> > > Yep, that is what I said. However, on second thought, without the > driver tx half I guess tx will be significantly slower.
The idea was that existing packet rings already send without copying, so the benefit from device driver changes is not obvious. I would leave them out for now and evaluate before possibly sending a separate patchset.
