On 5/28/25 06:03, Byungchul Park wrote:
...>> Thus abstractly different things maybe should not share the same
in-kernel struct.
One thing that maybe could work is if struct net_iov has a field in it
which tells us whether it's actually a struct page that can be passed
to mm apis, or not a struct page which cannot be passed to mm apis.
Or I should introduce another struct
maybe introducing another struct is the answer. I'm not sure. The net
The final form should be like:
struct netmem_desc {
struct page_pool *pp;
unsigned long dma_addr;
atomic_long_t ref_count;
};
struct net_iov {
struct netmem_desc;
enum net_iov_type type;
struct net_iov_area *owner;
...
};
However, now that overlaying on struct page is required, struct
netmem_desc should be almost same as struct net_iov. So I'm not sure if
we should introduce struct netmem_desc as a new struct along with struct
net_iov.
Yes, you should. Mina already explained that net_iov is not the same
thing as the net specific sub-struct of the page. They have common
fields, but there are also net_iov (memory provider) specific fields
as well.
--
Pavel Begunkov
