Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 13/15] eth: fbnic: add basic Rx handling

From: Jakub Kicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 11:19:18 -0700

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 11:03:13 -0700 Alexander Duyck wrote:
> This wasn't my full argument. You truncated the part where I
> specifically called out that it is hard to justify us pushing a
> proprietary API that is only used by our driver.

I see. Please be careful when making such arguments, tho.

> The "we know best" is more of an "I know best" as someone who has
> worked with page pool and the page fragment API since well before it
> existed. My push back is based on the fact that we don't want to
> allocate fragments, we want to allocate pages and fragment them
> ourselves after the fact. As such it doesn't make much sense to add an
> API that will have us trying to use the page fragment API which holds
> onto the page when the expectation is that we will take the whole
> thing and just fragment it ourselves.

To be clear I'm not arguing for the exact use of the API as suggested.
Or even that we should support this in the shared API. One would
probably have to take a stab at coding it up to find out what works
best. My first try FWIW would be to mask off the low bits of the
page index, eg. for 64k page making entries 0-15 all use rx_buf 
index 0...