io_uring/zcrx.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
From: Feng Zhou <zhoufeng.zf@bytedance.com>
ifq->if_rxq has not been assigned, is -1, the correct value is
in reg.if_rxq.
Fixes: 59b8b32ac8d469958936fcea781c7f58e3d64742 ("io_uring/zcrx: add support for custom DMA devices")
Signed-off-by: Feng Zhou <zhoufeng.zf@bytedance.com>
---
io_uring/zcrx.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/io_uring/zcrx.c b/io_uring/zcrx.c
index 319eddfd30e0..3639283c87ca 100644
--- a/io_uring/zcrx.c
+++ b/io_uring/zcrx.c
@@ -600,7 +600,7 @@ int io_register_zcrx_ifq(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx,
goto err;
}
- ifq->dev = netdev_queue_get_dma_dev(ifq->netdev, ifq->if_rxq);
+ ifq->dev = netdev_queue_get_dma_dev(ifq->netdev, reg.if_rxq);
if (!ifq->dev) {
ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
goto err;
--
2.30.2On 9/12/25 09:39, Feng zhou wrote:
> From: Feng Zhou <zhoufeng.zf@bytedance.com>
>
> ifq->if_rxq has not been assigned, is -1, the correct value is
> in reg.if_rxq.
Good catch. Note that the blamed patch was merged via the net tree
this time around to avoid conflicts, and the io_uring tree doesn't
have it yet. You can repost it adding netdev@vger.kernel.org and
the net maintainers to be merged via the net tree. Otherwise it'll
have to wait until 6.18-rc1 is out
> Fixes: 59b8b32ac8d469958936fcea781c7f58e3d64742 ("io_uring/zcrx: add support for custom DMA devices")
> Signed-off-by: Feng Zhou <zhoufeng.zf@bytedance.com>
> ---
> io_uring/zcrx.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/io_uring/zcrx.c b/io_uring/zcrx.c
> index 319eddfd30e0..3639283c87ca 100644
> --- a/io_uring/zcrx.c
> +++ b/io_uring/zcrx.c
> @@ -600,7 +600,7 @@ int io_register_zcrx_ifq(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx,
> goto err;
> }
>
> - ifq->dev = netdev_queue_get_dma_dev(ifq->netdev, ifq->if_rxq);
> + ifq->dev = netdev_queue_get_dma_dev(ifq->netdev, reg.if_rxq);
> if (!ifq->dev) {
> ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> goto err;
--
Pavel Begunkov
On Fri, 12 Sep 2025 13:40:06 +0100 Pavel Begunkov wrote: > On 9/12/25 09:39, Feng zhou wrote: > > From: Feng Zhou <zhoufeng.zf@bytedance.com> > > > > ifq->if_rxq has not been assigned, is -1, the correct value is > > in reg.if_rxq. > > Good catch. Note that the blamed patch was merged via the net tree > this time around to avoid conflicts, and the io_uring tree doesn't > have it yet. You can repost it adding netdev@vger.kernel.org and > the net maintainers to be merged via the net tree. Otherwise it'll > have to wait until 6.18-rc1 is out If only we had a maintainers entry that makes people automatically CC both lists, eh? :\
On 9/12/25 15:22, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Fri, 12 Sep 2025 13:40:06 +0100 Pavel Begunkov wrote: >> On 9/12/25 09:39, Feng zhou wrote: >>> From: Feng Zhou <zhoufeng.zf@bytedance.com> >>> >>> ifq->if_rxq has not been assigned, is -1, the correct value is >>> in reg.if_rxq. >> >> Good catch. Note that the blamed patch was merged via the net tree >> this time around to avoid conflicts, and the io_uring tree doesn't >> have it yet. You can repost it adding netdev@vger.kernel.org and >> the net maintainers to be merged via the net tree. Otherwise it'll >> have to wait until 6.18-rc1 is out > > If only we had a maintainers entry that makes people automatically > CC both lists, eh? :\ It's caused by a patch being taken not through the designated tree, which is fine, but CC wouldn't have prevented from the same dependency management. -- Pavel Begunkov
On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 7:22 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Fri, 12 Sep 2025 13:40:06 +0100 Pavel Begunkov wrote: > > On 9/12/25 09:39, Feng zhou wrote: > > > From: Feng Zhou <zhoufeng.zf@bytedance.com> > > > > > > ifq->if_rxq has not been assigned, is -1, the correct value is > > > in reg.if_rxq. > > > > Good catch. Note that the blamed patch was merged via the net tree > > this time around to avoid conflicts, and the io_uring tree doesn't > > have it yet. You can repost it adding netdev@vger.kernel.org and > > the net maintainers to be merged via the net tree. Otherwise it'll > > have to wait until 6.18-rc1 is out > > If only we had a maintainers entry that makes people automatically > CC both lists, eh? :\ FWIW that was the intention behind this patch I sent: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20250821025620.552728-1-almasrymina@google.com/ I didn't get any feedback on it; I assumed people are not interested (enough). Let me know if you want me to press the issue and send a non-RFC version. Although that one made sure that the changes are sent to net, only. I guess I could add the io_uring list to the L entries. -- Thanks, Mina
在 2025/9/12 20:40, Pavel Begunkov 写道:
> On 9/12/25 09:39, Feng zhou wrote:
>> From: Feng Zhou <zhoufeng.zf@bytedance.com>
>>
>> ifq->if_rxq has not been assigned, is -1, the correct value is
>> in reg.if_rxq.
>
> Good catch. Note that the blamed patch was merged via the net tree
> this time around to avoid conflicts, and the io_uring tree doesn't
> have it yet. You can repost it adding netdev@vger.kernel.org and
> the net maintainers to be merged via the net tree. Otherwise it'll
> have to wait until 6.18-rc1 is out
Thanks for reminding, will do.
>
>> Fixes: 59b8b32ac8d469958936fcea781c7f58e3d64742 ("io_uring/zcrx: add
>> support for custom DMA devices")
>> Signed-off-by: Feng Zhou <zhoufeng.zf@bytedance.com>
>> ---
>> io_uring/zcrx.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/io_uring/zcrx.c b/io_uring/zcrx.c
>> index 319eddfd30e0..3639283c87ca 100644
>> --- a/io_uring/zcrx.c
>> +++ b/io_uring/zcrx.c
>> @@ -600,7 +600,7 @@ int io_register_zcrx_ifq(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx,
>> goto err;
>> }
>> - ifq->dev = netdev_queue_get_dma_dev(ifq->netdev, ifq->if_rxq);
>> + ifq->dev = netdev_queue_get_dma_dev(ifq->netdev, reg.if_rxq);
>> if (!ifq->dev) {
>> ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> goto err;
>
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.