Re: [net-next PATCH v6 0/5] XDP for virtio_net

2016-12-17 Thread David Miller
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 22:48:14 +0200 > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 01:20:02PM -0500, David Miller wrote: >> From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" >> Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 01:17:44 +0200 >> >> > OK, I think we can queue this for -next. >> > >> >

Re: [net-next PATCH v6 0/5] XDP for virtio_net

2016-12-16 Thread Michael S. Tsirkin
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 01:20:02PM -0500, David Miller wrote: > From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" > Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 01:17:44 +0200 > > > OK, I think we can queue this for -next. > > > > It's fairly limited in the kind of hardware supported, we can and > > probably should extend

Re: [net-next PATCH v6 0/5] XDP for virtio_net

2016-12-16 Thread David Miller
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 01:17:44 +0200 > OK, I think we can queue this for -next. > > It's fairly limited in the kind of hardware supported, we can and > probably should extend it further with time. > > Acked-by: Michael S. Tsirkin

Re: [net-next PATCH v6 0/5] XDP for virtio_net

2016-12-15 Thread Michael S. Tsirkin
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 12:12:04PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote: > This implements virtio_net for the mergeable buffers and big_packet > modes. I tested this with vhost_net running on qemu and did not see > any issues. For testing num_buf > 1 I added a hack to vhost driver > to only but 100 bytes

[net-next PATCH v6 0/5] XDP for virtio_net

2016-12-15 Thread John Fastabend
This implements virtio_net for the mergeable buffers and big_packet modes. I tested this with vhost_net running on qemu and did not see any issues. For testing num_buf > 1 I added a hack to vhost driver to only but 100 bytes per buffer. There are some restrictions for XDP to be enabled and work