Re: [net-next V9 PATCH 00/16] XDP redirect memory return API
On 04/03/2018 07:03 PM, Saeed Mahameed wrote: > On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 9:23 AM, David Miller wrote: >> From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer >> Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 18:07:16 +0200 >>> On Tue, 03 Apr 2018 10:54:27 -0400 (EDT) >>> David Miller wrote: >>> Don't worry, just resubmit when net-next opens back up. >>> >>> At that point in time, should I got back to posting it against the >>> bpf-next git-tree again? Any preferences from Mellanox or BPF-guys? >> >> I have no personal preference, although it's probably best to go >> through the bpf-next tree. I'm fine either way as well. >>> ... It have been a bit of a pain to keep track of driver changes in >>> net-next, and waiting for them to get merged into bpf-next. >> >> I totally understand :) > > it depends on how often bpf-next gets synced with net-next, mlx5 > constantly changes and > I can't gurantee no merge conflicts will occur. We push out bpf and bpf-next typically once a week to sync, but in case of potential merge conflict or a dependency that we need to pull into bpf-next we can always push it out immediately and re-sync if we get a heads up.
Re: [net-next V9 PATCH 00/16] XDP redirect memory return API
On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 9:23 AM, David Miller wrote: > From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer > Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 18:07:16 +0200 > >> On Tue, 03 Apr 2018 10:54:27 -0400 (EDT) >> David Miller wrote: >> >>> Don't worry, just resubmit when net-next opens back up. >> >> At that point in time, should I got back to posting it against the >> bpf-next git-tree again? Any preferences from Mellanox or BPF-guys? > > I have no personal preference, although it's probably best to go > through the bpf-next tree. > >> ... It have been a bit of a pain to keep track of driver changes in >> net-next, and waiting for them to get merged into bpf-next. > > I totally understand :) it depends on how often bpf-next gets synced with net-next, mlx5 constantly changes and I can't gurantee no merge conflicts will occur. IMHO, this series is more focused on device drivers and less on XDP or BPF, so it makes more sense to post it to net-next, it will be less pain for everyone, especially for you Jesper :).
Re: [net-next V9 PATCH 00/16] XDP redirect memory return API
From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 18:07:16 +0200 > On Tue, 03 Apr 2018 10:54:27 -0400 (EDT) > David Miller wrote: > >> Don't worry, just resubmit when net-next opens back up. > > At that point in time, should I got back to posting it against the > bpf-next git-tree again? Any preferences from Mellanox or BPF-guys? I have no personal preference, although it's probably best to go through the bpf-next tree. > ... It have been a bit of a pain to keep track of driver changes in > net-next, and waiting for them to get merged into bpf-next. I totally understand :)
Re: [net-next V9 PATCH 00/16] XDP redirect memory return API
On Tue, 03 Apr 2018 10:54:27 -0400 (EDT) David Miller wrote: > From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer > Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2018 13:07:36 +0200 > > > This is V9, but it's worth mentioning that V8 was send against > > net-next, because i40e got XDP_REDIRECT support in-between V6, and it > > doesn't exist in bpf-next yet. Most significant change in V8 was that > > page_pool only gets compiled into the kernel when a drivers Kconfig > > 'select' the feature. > > Jesper, this series now looks good to me, however the net-next tree is > closed at this point. I noticed, but though that in-flight patchset's were still allowed... > Don't worry, just resubmit when net-next opens back up. At that point in time, should I got back to posting it against the bpf-next git-tree again? Any preferences from Mellanox or BPF-guys? ... It have been a bit of a pain to keep track of driver changes in net-next, and waiting for them to get merged into bpf-next. -- Best regards, Jesper Dangaard Brouer MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
Re: [net-next V9 PATCH 00/16] XDP redirect memory return API
From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2018 13:07:36 +0200 > This is V9, but it's worth mentioning that V8 was send against > net-next, because i40e got XDP_REDIRECT support in-between V6, and it > doesn't exist in bpf-next yet. Most significant change in V8 was that > page_pool only gets compiled into the kernel when a drivers Kconfig > 'select' the feature. Jesper, this series now looks good to me, however the net-next tree is closed at this point. Don't worry, just resubmit when net-next opens back up. Thanks!
