From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7EE9B190664; Tue, 21 Oct 2025 01:25:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761009918; cv=none; b=QueG4OUDKnJMZU0AMSDcnc6jhnhSgPBhVq2WLv26nKz46RQwWwW8yY0MXmHNeaXUjcLp5F9QIMrtxtWU3oXcWl+BkNXiglO5k9lD139Palb81epYNBa+OCQALMJlBesBxN0k4CkgYKxf0GS6koYtUA0iJpVRtlGINvZDtj1bXWk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761009918; c=relaxed/simple; bh=uC7kF+4AxkOArh15j0Jwvp3XCsIboqvE/irDePvovX8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=HR534y7NWRMjLt9Xq8OFruwHF4r0t3dNaIvbK27epwOlCBumYEdOeeOu+UL5Yrv5NVNH7esqAcpBui5IvJVuXB6ts4YEJZeuS0/YF1388fGkLLPyXRu50hh3zAgZeSWLKAM3ByC0YBMDtsw5CwQt/b5h7G7hpJlGBavw1a4m/Dg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=h/JrSJo2; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="h/JrSJo2" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4EFC8C4CEFB; Tue, 21 Oct 2025 01:25:16 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1761009917; bh=uC7kF+4AxkOArh15j0Jwvp3XCsIboqvE/irDePvovX8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=h/JrSJo23ntPb3qh47ToXZwvAYlRJwSE91XvPF8v1WqFBHYMBJp6qfDs2La2IAPjW IMa847cd88ag/vndDx7ZGyy5PiD6+VsdkgVVAFJ7rWIdxIAfS1lobX62hlarwauIek YxlhacoPxo5qQU2TVvejmggn0gCMTcMtNDIc5LAVGk2VtFjUHkBSfLLiqIVYkNpJ8n bgf+3geZ+3hb75runxR6g5l93cwIXXyt9gv0tSEbL1SD2UNPtrkIairWTMGWAo2383 bWxf80DehdxflPfSTTJaMg1QfHuVKC7+++UBlwUHJZe8I7giqBT8Y2fo7k3835nqyj p+N9IKiJ28idg== Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2025 18:25:15 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Jacob Keller Cc: Jiri Pirko , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Paolo Abeni , Simon Horman , Jonathan Corbet , Tony Nguyen , Przemek Kitszel , Andrew Lunn , Alexander Lobakin , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mohammad Heib , Aleksandr Loktionov , Rafal Romanowski Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 02/14] i40e: support generic devlink param "max_mac_per_vf" Message-ID: <20251020182515.457ad11c@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <20251016-jk-iwl-next-2025-10-15-v2-2-ff3a390d9fc6@intel.com> References: <20251016-jk-iwl-next-2025-10-15-v2-0-ff3a390d9fc6@intel.com> <20251016-jk-iwl-next-2025-10-15-v2-2-ff3a390d9fc6@intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 16 Oct 2025 23:08:31 -0700 Jacob Keller wrote: > - The configured value is a theoretical maximum. Hardware limits may > still prevent additional MAC addresses from being added, even if the > parameter allows it. Is "administrative policy" better than "theoretical max" ? Also -- should we be scanning the existing state to check if some VM hasn't violated the new setting and error or at least return a extack to the user to warn that the policy is not currently adhered to?