Re: [PATCH iwl-next] idpf: preserve coalescing settings across resets

[Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>]

On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 09:48:02AM -0600, Ahmed Zaki wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2025-06-21 6:13 a.m., Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 11:15:48AM -0600, Ahmed Zaki wrote:
> > > The IRQ coalescing config currently reside only inside struct
> > > idpf_q_vector. However, all idpf_q_vector structs are de-allocated and
> > > re-allocated during resets. This leads to user-set coalesce configuration
> > > to be lost.
> > > 
> > > Add new fields to struct idpf_vport_user_config_data to save the user
> > > settings and re-apply them after reset.
> > > 
> > > Reviewed-by: Madhu Chittim <madhu.chittim@intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Ahmed Zaki <ahmed.zaki@intel.com>
> > 
> > Hi Ahmed,
> > 
> > I am wondering if this patch also preserves coalescing settings in the case
> > where.
> > 
> > 1. User sets coalescence for n queues
> > 2. The number of queues is reduced, say to m (where m < n)
> > 3. The user then increases the number of queues, say back to n
> > 
> > It seems to me that in this scenario it's reasonable to preserve
> > the settings for queues 0 to m, bit not queues m + 1 to n.
> 
> Hi Simon,
> 
> I just did a quick test and it seems new settings are preserved in the above
> scenario: all n queues have the new coalescing settings.

Hi Ahmed,

Thanks for looking into this.

> > But perhaps this point is orthogonal to this change.
> > I am unsure.
> > 
> 
> Agreed, but let me know if it is a showstopper.

If preserving the status of all n queues, rather than just the first m
queues, in the scenario described above is new behaviour added by this
patch then I would lean towards yes. Else no.