Subject: Re: [xdp-hints] [PATCH bpf-next 2/9] xsk: add TX timestamp and TX checksum offload support

From: Stanislav Fomichev <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2023 11:25:54 -0700

On 08/09, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> 
> 
> On 09/08/2023 18.54, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > diff --git a/include/net/xdp_sock_drv.h b/include/net/xdp_sock_drv.h
> > index 1f6fc8c7a84c..e2558ac3e195 100644
> > --- a/include/net/xdp_sock_drv.h
> > +++ b/include/net/xdp_sock_drv.h
> > @@ -165,6 +165,14 @@ static inline void *xsk_buff_raw_get_data(struct xsk_buff_pool *pool, u64 addr)
> >   	return xp_raw_get_data(pool, addr);
> >   }
> > +static inline struct xsk_tx_metadata *xsk_buff_get_metadata(struct xsk_buff_pool *pool, u64 addr)
> > +{
> > +	if (!pool->tx_metadata_len)
> > +		return NULL;
> > +
> > +	return xp_raw_get_data(pool, addr) - pool->tx_metadata_len;
> > +}
> > +
> >   static inline void xsk_buff_dma_sync_for_cpu(struct xdp_buff *xdp, struct xsk_buff_pool *pool)
> >   {
> >   	struct xdp_buff_xsk *xskb = container_of(xdp, struct xdp_buff_xsk, xdp);
> > @@ -324,6 +332,11 @@ static inline void *xsk_buff_raw_get_data(struct xsk_buff_pool *pool, u64 addr)
> >   	return NULL;
> >   }
> > +static inline struct xsk_tx_metadata *xsk_buff_get_metadata(struct xsk_buff_pool *pool, u64 addr)
> > +{
> > +	return NULL;
> > +}
> > +
> >   static inline void xsk_buff_dma_sync_for_cpu(struct xdp_buff *xdp, struct xsk_buff_pool *pool)
> >   {
> >   }
> > diff --git a/include/net/xsk_buff_pool.h b/include/net/xsk_buff_pool.h
> > index 9c31e8d1e198..3a559753e793 100644
> > --- a/include/net/xsk_buff_pool.h
> > +++ b/include/net/xsk_buff_pool.h
> > @@ -234,4 +234,9 @@ static inline u64 xp_get_handle(struct xdp_buff_xsk *xskb)
> >   	return xskb->orig_addr + (offset << XSK_UNALIGNED_BUF_OFFSET_SHIFT);
> >   }
> > +static inline bool xp_tx_metadata_enabled(const xdp_buff_xsk *xskb)
> 
> Hmm, shouldn't this argument be "struct xsk_buff_pool *pool" ?!?
> 
> > +{
> > +	return sq->xsk_pool->tx_metadata_len > 0;
> > +}
> 
> Will this even compile?

Yeah, you're right, this is completely bogus. This me doing the
'fixes' before sending out :-/ Will fix in a v2, thanks!