[Intel-wired-lan] [net-next PATCH v3 2/3] e1000: add initial XDP support

Eric Dumazet eric.dumazet at gmail.com
Mon Sep 12 23:46:08 UTC 2016


On Mon, 2016-09-12 at 16:07 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:

> yep. there are various ways to shoot yourself in the foot with xdp.
> The simplest program that drops all the packets will make the box unpingable.

Well, my comment was about XDP_TX only, not about XDP_DROP or driving a
scooter on 101 highway ;)

This XDP_TX thing was one of the XDP marketing stuff, but there is
absolutely no documentation on it, warning users about possible
limitations/outcomes.

BTW, I am not sure mlx4 implementation even works, vs BQL :

mlx4_en_xmit_frame() does not call netdev_tx_sent_queue(),
but tx completion will call netdev_tx_completed_queue() -> crash

Do we have one test to validate that a XDP_TX implementation is actually
correct ?





More information about the Intel-wired-lan mailing list