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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).