Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/7] idpf: support pacing offload

Mohsin Bashir wrote:

On 7/22/26 1:43 PM, Willem de Bruijn wrote:

quoted

From: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com>

If skb->tstamp is in the future, program this future delivery txtime
in the transmit descriptor.

TCP pacing offload is only offloaded if SK_PACING_FQ is negotiated and
the FQ offload_horizon is configured.

But device support for pacing offload must be more robust. It can also
be reached through SO_TXTIME.

Bound check txtime. Only packets with timestamp between now and the
horizon (max_pacing_offload_horizon) are offloaded.

Support only in splitq mode, where tx and tx completion queues are
separate and so completions can be returned out of order.

Assume that the NIC clock is PTP synchronized to CLOCK_TAI. This
can later be refined, e.g., to a custom CLOCK_AUX.

Disable if in netpoll. It does not need the feature, and the ktime
functions are not safe to call in this context.

Cc: Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>
Cc: Joshua A Hay <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com>

quoted

@@ -2408,9 +2410,13 @@ void idpf_tx_splitq_build_flow_desc(union idpf_tx_flex_desc *desc,
  				    struct idpf_tx_splitq_params *params,
  				    u16 td_cmd, u16 size)
  {
-	*(u32 *)&desc->flow.qw1.cmd_dtype = (u8)(params->dtype | td_cmd);
+	*(__le32 *)&desc->flow.qw1.cmd_dtype = cpu_to_le32((u8)(params->dtype | td_cmd));

Looks like an independent change (potentially a fix)?

I did not seem important enough in practice. I'm not aware of any IDPF
on big endian. But I can pull it out if anyone really prefers it.