On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 3:10 PM Alexander Lobakin
<aleksander.lobakin@intel.com> wrote:
>
> From: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@intel.com>
> Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2025 17:36:01 +0100
>
> > Several months ago, I had been looking through my old XDP hints tree[0]
> > to check whether some patches not directly related to hints can be sent
> > standalone. Roughly at the same time, Daniel appeared and asked[1] about
> > GRO for cpumap from that tree.
>
> I see "Changes requested" on Patchwork. Which ones?
>
> 1/8 regarding gro_node? Nobody proposed a solution which would be as
> efficient, but avoid using struct_group(), I don't see such as well.
> I explain in the commitmsgs and cover letter everything. Jakub gave me
> Acked-by on struct_group() in the v3 thread.

One of the points of your nice series is to dissociate GRO from NAPI,
so defining gro_node inside napi_struct is not appealing.

I suggested not putting napi_id in the new structure.

If you need to cache a copy in it for "performance/whatever reason",
you can cache napi_id, because napi->napi_id is only set once
in __napi_hash_add_with_id()

gro->napi_id_cache = napi->napi_id;