From: David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>
To: Ratheesh Kannoth <rkannoth@marvell.com>,
stephen@networkplumber.org, kuba@kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Cc: andrew+netdev@lunn.ch, edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com,
jiri@resnulli.us
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2-next v2 2/2] devlink: support u64-array values in devlink param show/set
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2026 08:36:17 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9d9cceae-3934-4dd6-ae8e-af995ae6b0ab@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260630015012.3728870-3-rkannoth@marvell.com>
On 6/29/26 7:50 PM, Ratheesh Kannoth wrote:
> diff --git a/devlink/devlink.c b/devlink/devlink.c
> index 9372e92f..3c29601d 100644
> --- a/devlink/devlink.c
> +++ b/devlink/devlink.c
> @@ -3496,13 +3496,115 @@ static const struct param_val_conv param_val_conv[] = {
> };
>
> #define PARAM_VAL_CONV_LEN ARRAY_SIZE(param_val_conv)
> +#define DEVLINK_PARAM_MAX_ARRAY_SIZE 32
Why 32? Is that based on current code? How does the kernel side handle
the number of parameters? What happens if the kernel sends more than 32
parameters - from a user's perspective, not this code and processing the
output?
> +
> +struct devlink_param_u64_array {
> + uint64_t size;
> + uint64_t val[DEVLINK_PARAM_MAX_ARRAY_SIZE];
> +};
> +
> +static int param_value_nested_u64_attr_cb(const struct nlattr *attr, void *data)
> +{
> + struct devlink_param_u64_array *arr = data;
> + unsigned int len;
> +
> + if (mnl_attr_get_type(attr) != DEVLINK_ATTR_PARAM_VALUE_DATA)
> + return MNL_CB_OK;
> +
> + if (arr->size >= DEVLINK_PARAM_MAX_ARRAY_SIZE)
> + return MNL_CB_ERROR;
> +
> + len = mnl_attr_get_payload_len(attr);
> + if (len == sizeof(uint32_t))
> + arr->val[arr->size++] = mnl_attr_get_u32(attr);
> + else if (len == sizeof(uint64_t))
> + arr->val[arr->size++] = mnl_attr_get_u64(attr);
> + else
> + return MNL_CB_ERROR;
> +
> + return MNL_CB_OK;
> +}
> +
> +static int param_value_u64_array_fill(struct nlattr *nl,
> + struct devlink_param_u64_array *arr)
> +{
> + int err;
> +
> + arr->size = 0;
> + err = mnl_attr_parse_nested(nl, param_value_nested_u64_attr_cb, arr);
> + if (err != MNL_CB_OK)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static bool param_value_u64_array_equal(const struct devlink_param_u64_array *a,
> + const struct devlink_param_u64_array *b)
> +{
> + uint64_t i;
> +
> + if (a->size != b->size)
> + return false;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < a->size; i++) {
> + if (a->val[i] != b->val[i])
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> +static int param_value_u64_array_put_from_str(struct nlmsghdr *nlh,
> + const char *param_value,
> + const struct devlink_param_u64_array *cur)
> +{
> + struct devlink_param_u64_array new_arr = {};
> + char *copy, *token, *saveptr = NULL;
> + char delim[] = " ,";
> + uint64_t val;
> + int err;
> +
> + copy = strdup(param_value);
> + if (!copy)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + token = strtok_r(copy, delim, &saveptr);
> + while (token) {
> + if (new_arr.size >= DEVLINK_PARAM_MAX_ARRAY_SIZE) {
> + free(copy);
> + pr_err("Too many array elements (max %d)\n",
> + DEVLINK_PARAM_MAX_ARRAY_SIZE);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> + err = get_u64((__u64 *)&val, token, 10);
> + if (err) {
> + free(copy);
> + pr_err("Value \"%s\" is not a number or not within range\n",
> + token);
> + return err;
> + }
> + new_arr.val[new_arr.size++] = val;
> + token = strtok_r(NULL, delim, &saveptr);
> + }
> + free(copy);
> +
> + if (cur && param_value_u64_array_equal(&new_arr, cur))
> + return 1;
> +
> + for (uint64_t i = 0; i < new_arr.size; i++)
put the declaration at the top of the function with the rest of them.
global comment; fix all of them.
> + mnl_attr_put_u64(nlh, DEVLINK_ATTR_PARAM_VALUE_DATA, new_arr.val[i]);
Why can't this put be done in the loop above as the string is processed?
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
>
> static int pr_out_param_value_print(const char *nla_name, int nla_type,
> struct nlattr *val_attr, bool conv_exists,
> - const char *label, bool flag_as_u8)
> + const char *label, bool flag_as_u8, struct nlattr *nl)
> {
> + struct devlink_param_u64_array u64_arr = { };
> const char *vstr;
> - int err;
> + char buffer[1024];
> + int err, cnt = 0;
>
> print_string(PRINT_FP, NULL, " %s ", label);
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-06-30 14:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-06-30 1:50 [PATCH iproute2-next v2 0/2] devlink: support u64-array devlink parameters Ratheesh Kannoth
2026-06-30 1:50 ` [PATCH iproute2-next v2 1/2] devlink: use DEVLINK_VAR_ATTR_TYPE_* in param show/set Ratheesh Kannoth
2026-06-30 1:50 ` [PATCH iproute2-next v2 2/2] devlink: support u64-array values in devlink " Ratheesh Kannoth
2026-06-30 14:36 ` David Ahern [this message]
2026-07-01 2:29 ` Ratheesh Kannoth
2026-07-01 14:34 ` David Ahern
2026-07-02 2:47 ` Ratheesh Kannoth
2026-07-01 2:57 ` Ratheesh Kannoth
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=9d9cceae-3934-4dd6-ae8e-af995ae6b0ab@kernel.org \
--to=dsahern@kernel.org \
--cc=andrew+netdev@lunn.ch \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=jiri@resnulli.us \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=rkannoth@marvell.com \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
/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.