| Message ID | 20240909205323.3110312-1-anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | idpf: XDP chapter II: convert Tx completion to libeth | expand |
On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 13:53:15 -0700 Tony Nguyen wrote: > Alexander Lobakin says: > > XDP for idpf is currently 5 chapters: > * convert Rx to libeth; > * convert Tx completion to libeth (this); > * generic XDP and XSk code changes; > * actual XDP for idpf via libeth_xdp; > * XSk for idpf (^). > > Part II does the following: > * adds generic libeth Tx completion routines; > * converts idpf to use generic libeth Tx comp routines; > * fixes Tx queue timeouts and robustifies Tx completion in general; > * fixes Tx event/descriptor flushes (writebacks). You're posting two series at once, again. I was going to merge the subfunction series yesterday, but since you don't wait why would I bother trying to merge your code quickly. And this morning I got chased by Thorsten about Intel regressions, again: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=219143 Do you have anything else queued up? I'm really tempted to ask you to not post anything else for net-next this week.
On 9/10/2024 7:16 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 13:53:15 -0700 Tony Nguyen wrote: >> Alexander Lobakin says: >> >> XDP for idpf is currently 5 chapters: >> * convert Rx to libeth; >> * convert Tx completion to libeth (this); >> * generic XDP and XSk code changes; >> * actual XDP for idpf via libeth_xdp; >> * XSk for idpf (^). >> >> Part II does the following: >> * adds generic libeth Tx completion routines; >> * converts idpf to use generic libeth Tx comp routines; >> * fixes Tx queue timeouts and robustifies Tx completion in general; >> * fixes Tx event/descriptor flushes (writebacks). > > You're posting two series at once, again. I was going to merge the > subfunction series yesterday, but since you don't wait why would > I bother trying to merge your code quickly. I thought last month's vacations were over as I had seen Eric and Paolo on the list and that things were returning to normal. > And this morning I got > chased by Thorsten about Intel regressions, again: > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=219143 Our client team, who works on that driver, was working on that issue. I will check in with them. > Do you have anything else queued up? > I'm really tempted to ask you to not post anything else for net-next > this week. I do have more patches that need to be sent, but it's more than can fit in the time that's left. There are 1 or 2 more that I was hoping to get in before net-next closed or Plumbers starts. Thanks, Tony
On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 09:46:57 -0700 Tony Nguyen wrote: > > You're posting two series at once, again. I was going to merge the > > subfunction series yesterday, but since you don't wait why would > > I bother trying to merge your code quickly. > > I thought last month's vacations were over as I had seen Eric and Paolo > on the list and that things were returning to normal. Stubbornly people continue to take vacations, have babies etc. But that's besides the point. Either we are merging stuff quickly, and there's no need to queue two series, or we're backed up due to absences and you should wait. The rule of 15 patches at a time is about breaking work up as much as throttling. Up to outstanding 15 patches to each tree. I find it hard to believe you don't know this. > > And this morning I got > > chased by Thorsten about Intel regressions, again: > > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=219143 > > Our client team, who works on that driver, was working on that issue. > I will check in with them. > > > Do you have anything else queued up? > > I'm really tempted to ask you to not post anything else for net-next > > this week. > > I do have more patches that need to be sent, but it's more than can fit > in the time that's left. There are 1 or 2 more that I was hoping to get > in before net-next closed or Plumbers starts. Higher prio stuff (read: exclusively authored by people who were actively reviewing upstream (non-Intel) code within last 3 months) may be able to get applied in time. We have 250 outstanding patches right now, and just 3 days to go.
On 9/10/2024 2:44 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 09:46:57 -0700 Tony Nguyen wrote: >>> You're posting two series at once, again. I was going to merge the >>> subfunction series yesterday, but since you don't wait why would >>> I bother trying to merge your code quickly. >> >> I thought last month's vacations were over as I had seen Eric and Paolo >> on the list and that things were returning to normal. > > Stubbornly people continue to take vacations, have babies etc. > But that's besides the point. > > Either we are merging stuff quickly, and there's no need to queue two > series, or we're backed up due to absences and you should wait. > > The rule of 15 patches at a time is about breaking work up as much as > throttling. Up to outstanding 15 patches to each tree. > I find it hard to believe you don't know this. Honestly I didn't, but will follow this now that I do. >>> And this morning I got >>> chased by Thorsten about Intel regressions, again: >>> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=219143 >> >> Our client team, who works on that driver, was working on that issue. >> I will check in with them. >> >>> Do you have anything else queued up? >>> I'm really tempted to ask you to not post anything else for net-next >>> this week. >> >> I do have more patches that need to be sent, but it's more than can fit >> in the time that's left. There are 1 or 2 more that I was hoping to get >> in before net-next closed or Plumbers starts. > > Higher prio stuff (read: exclusively authored by people who were > actively reviewing upstream (non-Intel) code within last 3 months) > may be able to get applied in time. We have 250 outstanding patches > right now, and just 3 days to go. I'll hold off on sending those then and try to get us more involved in the future. Thanks, Tony
Hello: This series was applied to netdev/net-next.git (main) by Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>: On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 13:53:15 -0700 you wrote: > Alexander Lobakin says: > > XDP for idpf is currently 5 chapters: > * convert Rx to libeth; > * convert Tx completion to libeth (this); > * generic XDP and XSk code changes; > * actual XDP for idpf via libeth_xdp; > * XSk for idpf (^). > > [...] Here is the summary with links: - [net-next,v3,1/6] libeth: add Tx buffer completion helpers https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/080d72f471c8 - [net-next,v3,2/6] idpf: convert to libeth Tx buffer completion https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/d9028db618a6 - [net-next,v3,3/6] netdevice: add netdev_tx_reset_subqueue() shorthand https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/3dc95a3edd0a - [net-next,v3,4/6] idpf: refactor Tx completion routines https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/24eb35b15152 - [net-next,v3,5/6] idpf: fix netdev Tx queue stop/wake https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/e4b398dd82f5 - [net-next,v3,6/6] idpf: enable WB_ON_ITR https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/9c4a27da0ecc You are awesome, thank you!