Re: [PATCH net-next v4 00/24][pull request] Queue configs and large buffer providers

[Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>]

On 10/13/25 18:54, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 15:54:02 +0100 Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> Jakub Kicinski (20):
>>    docs: ethtool: document that rx_buf_len must control payload lengths
>>    net: ethtool: report max value for rx-buf-len
>>    net: use zero value to restore rx_buf_len to default
>>    net: clarify the meaning of netdev_config members
>>    net: add rx_buf_len to netdev config
>>    eth: bnxt: read the page size from the adapter struct
>>    eth: bnxt: set page pool page order based on rx_page_size
>>    eth: bnxt: support setting size of agg buffers via ethtool
>>    net: move netdev_config manipulation to dedicated helpers
>>    net: reduce indent of struct netdev_queue_mgmt_ops members
>>    net: allocate per-queue config structs and pass them thru the queue
>>      API
>>    net: pass extack to netdev_rx_queue_restart()
>>    net: add queue config validation callback
>>    eth: bnxt: always set the queue mgmt ops
>>    eth: bnxt: store the rx buf size per queue
>>    eth: bnxt: adjust the fill level of agg queues with larger buffers
>>    netdev: add support for setting rx-buf-len per queue
>>    net: wipe the setting of deactived queues
>>    eth: bnxt: use queue op config validate
>>    eth: bnxt: support per queue configuration of rx-buf-len
> 
> I'd like to rework these a little bit.
> On reflection I don't like the single size control.
> Please hold off.

I think that would be quite unproductive considering that this series
has been around for 3 months already with no forward progress, and the
API was posted 6 months ago. I have a better idea, I'll shrink it down
by removing all unnecessary parts, that makes it much much simpler and
should detangle the effort from ethtool bits like Stan once suggested.
I've also been bothered for some time by it growing to 24 patches, it'll
help with that as well. And it'll be a good base to put all the netlink
configuration bits on top if necessary.

> Also what's the resolution for the maintainers entry / cross posting?

I'm pretty much interested as well :) I've been CC'ing netdev as a
gesture of goodwill, that's despite you blocking an unrelated series
because of a rule you made up and retrospectively applied and belittling
my work after. It doesn't seem that you content with it either,
evidently from you blocking it again. I'm very curious what's that all
about? And since you're unwilling to deal with the series, maybe you'll
let other maintainers to handle it?

-- 
Pavel Begunkov