Re: [PATCH iwl-next v4 0/9] igc: Add support for Frame Preemption feature in IGC

Vladimir Oltean
2025-02-13T09:00:42Z

On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 02:12:47PM +0800, Abdul Rahim, Faizal wrote:
> I was planning to enable fpe + mqprio separately since it requires extra
> effort to explore mqprio with preemptible rings, ring priorities, and
> testing to ensure it works properly and there are no regressions.
>
> I’m really hoping that fpe + mqprio doesn’t have to be enabled together in
> this series to keep things simple. It could be added later—adding it now
> would introduce additional complexity and delay this series further, which
> is focused on enabling basic, working fpe on i226.
>
> Would that be okay with you?

But why would the mqprio params of taprio be handled differently than
the dedicated mqprio qdisc? Why isn't the additional complexity you
mention also needed for taprio? When I got convinced to expose
preemptible TCs through separate UAPI in mqprio in taprio, it wasn't my
understanding that drivers would be reacting differently depending on
which Qdisc the configuration comes from.