On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 8:05 AM Lorenzo Bianconi [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 05:41:57PM +0200, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:

Hi Alexei,

quoted

quoted

From: Sameeh Jubran <redacted>

The implementation is based on this [0] draft by Jesper D. Brouer.

Provided two new helpers:

* bpf_xdp_get_frag_count()
* bpf_xdp_get_frags_total_size()

+ * int bpf_xdp_get_frag_count(struct xdp_buff *xdp_md)
+ * Description
+ *         Get the number of fragments for a given xdp multi-buffer.
+ * Return
+ *         The number of fragments
+ *
+ * int bpf_xdp_get_frags_total_size(struct xdp_buff *xdp_md)
+ * Description
+ *         Get the total size of fragments for a given xdp multi-buffer.
+ * Return
+ *         The total size of fragments for a given xdp multi-buffer.
  */
 #define __BPF_FUNC_MAPPER(FN)              \
    FN(unspec),                     \

@@ -3737,6 +3749,8 @@ union bpf_attr {
    FN(inode_storage_delete),       \
    FN(d_path),                     \
    FN(copy_from_user),             \
+   FN(xdp_get_frag_count),         \
+   FN(xdp_get_frags_total_size),   \
    /* */

Please route the set via bpf-next otherwise merge conflicts will be severe.

ack, fine

in bpf-next the following two commits (available in net-next) are currently missing:
- 632bb64f126a: net: mvneta: try to use in-irq pp cache in mvneta_txq_bufs_free
- 879456bedbe5: net: mvneta: avoid possible cache misses in mvneta_rx_swbm

is it ok to rebase bpf-next ontop of net-next in order to post all the series
in bpf-next? Or do you prefer to post mvneta patches in net-next and bpf
related changes in bpf-next when it will rebased ontop of net-next?

bpf-next will receive these patches later today,
so I prefer the whole thing on top of bpf-next at that time.