From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: Edward Cree <ecree@amd.com>
Cc: Pavan Chebbi <pavan.chebbi@broadcom.com>,
davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com,
Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@gmail.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: ethtool: fix off-by-one error in max RSS context IDs
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2024 07:07:58 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240807070758.07752f14@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e6cebcb7-a3e0-076f-e099-420a143cbaaf@amd.com>
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 11:30:54 +0100 Edward Cree wrote:
> > also1 if we want to switch to exclusive I maintain we should rename the
> > field
>
> Okay, will do. I misunderstood your "if we change the definition
> of the field" remark, because in my head I'm not changing the
> definition ;)
> How about rxfh_max_num_contexts?
As good as anything I can come up with :)
It's hard to name it as "this is just for width of the contexts"
without implying that it's inclusive :S
I was thinking about hinting at this being the limit fed into XArray,
but Xarray's limit is inclusive.
Another thought I had was FIELD_MAX(), again, inclusive :D
Maybe we can forgo the max as it could imply max value, and insert id
instead because we're talking about ids not contexts?
rxfh_context_id_cnt ? Or give up and rxfh_field1_read_the_doc ;)
> > also2 check that it's not 1 during registration, that'd be nonsense
>
> Fair enough.
>
> > also3 you're breaking bnxt, it _wants_ 32 to be a valid ID, with max 32
>
> Fwiw the limit in bnxt existed purely for the sake of the bitmap[1]
> which you removed when you converted it to the new API.
> My reading of the bnxt code is that context allocation happens via
> a firmware RPC. Pavan, if the firmware can be trusted to reject
> this RPC when it has no contexts left to give, then you shouldn't
> need an rxfh_max_context_id in the driver at all and you can
> remove it from ethtool_ops for net-next.
> To avoid a regression in net I'll change it to 33 in my patch.
>
> (Typically rxfh_max_context_id is only needed if either driver or
> firmware is using the context ID as an index into a fixed-size
> array. This is why I consider an exclusive limit -- which would
> be set to an ARRAY_SIZE() -- more appropriate.)
Got it. I had the vague plan of piggy backing on this to express
the order of magnitude of how many contexts are supported, but FWIW
I no longer think it's a good fit, anyway.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-08-07 14:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-08-06 16:01 [PATCH net] net: ethtool: fix off-by-one error in max RSS context IDs edward.cree
2024-08-06 16:07 ` Edward Cree
2024-08-06 16:54 ` Jakub Kicinski
2024-08-07 10:30 ` Edward Cree
2024-08-07 14:07 ` Jakub Kicinski [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20240807070758.07752f14@kernel.org \
--to=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=ecree.xilinx@gmail.com \
--cc=ecree@amd.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=pavan.chebbi@broadcom.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.