Re: [PATCH net-next 2/9] ice: devlink PF MSI-X max and min parameter

[Michal Swiatkowski <michal.swiatkowski@linux.intel.com>]

On Tue, Feb 04, 2025 at 06:41:21PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 07:06:00 +0100
> Michal Swiatkowski <michal.swiatkowski@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 09:48:08PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > > On Mon,  3 Feb 2025 13:09:31 -0800
> > > Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com> wrote:
> > >   
> > > > From: Michal Swiatkowski <michal.swiatkowski@linux.intel.com>
> > > > 
> > > > Use generic devlink PF MSI-X parameter to allow user to change MSI-X
> > > > range.
> > > > 
> > > > Add notes about this parameters into ice devlink documentation.
> ....
> > > Don't those checks make it difficult to set the min and max together?
> > > I think you need to create the new min/max pair and check they are
> > > valid together.
> > > Which probably requires one parameter with two values.
> > >   
> > 
> > I wanted to reuse exsisting parameter. The other user of it is bnxt
> > driver. In it there is a separate check for min "max" and max "max".
> > It is also problematic, because min can be set to value greater than
> > max (here it can happen when setting together to specific values).
> > I can do a follow up to this series and change this parameter as you
> > suggested. What do you think?
> 
> Changing the way a parameter is used will break API compatibility.
> Perhaps you can get the generic parameter validation function to
> update a 'pending' copy, and then do the final min < max check after
> all the parameters have been processed before actually updating
> the live limits.
> 
> The other option is just not to check whether min < max and just
> document which takes precedence (and not use clamp()).
> 
> It may even be worth saving the 'live limits' as 'hi << 16 | lo' so
> that then can be accessed atomically (with READ/WRITE_ONCE) to avoid
> anything looking at the limits getting confused.
> (Although maybe that doesn't matter here?)
> 
> 	David

Right, I though it is better to have any additional validation for min >
max cases, but it looks like it is more problematic. I can drop it to
algin with the bnxt solution.

Thanks,
Michal

> 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Michal