From: David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>
To: Ratheesh Kannoth <rkannoth@marvell.com>,
stephen@networkplumber.org, kuba@kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Cc: andrew+netdev@lunn.ch, edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com,
jiri@resnulli.us
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2-next v2 2/2] devlink: support u64-array values in devlink param show/set
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2026 08:36:17 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9d9cceae-3934-4dd6-ae8e-af995ae6b0ab@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260630015012.3728870-3-rkannoth@marvell.com>
On 6/29/26 7:50 PM, Ratheesh Kannoth wrote:
> diff --git a/devlink/devlink.c b/devlink/devlink.c
> index 9372e92f..3c29601d 100644
> --- a/devlink/devlink.c
> +++ b/devlink/devlink.c
> @@ -3496,13 +3496,115 @@ static const struct param_val_conv param_val_conv[] = {
> };
>
> #define PARAM_VAL_CONV_LEN ARRAY_SIZE(param_val_conv)
> +#define DEVLINK_PARAM_MAX_ARRAY_SIZE 32
Why 32? Is that based on current code? How does the kernel side handle
the number of parameters? What happens if the kernel sends more than 32
parameters - from a user's perspective, not this code and processing the
output?
> +
> +struct devlink_param_u64_array {
> + uint64_t size;
> + uint64_t val[DEVLINK_PARAM_MAX_ARRAY_SIZE];
> +};
> +
> +static int param_value_nested_u64_attr_cb(const struct nlattr *attr, void *data)
> +{
> + struct devlink_param_u64_array *arr = data;
> + unsigned int len;
> +
> + if (mnl_attr_get_type(attr) != DEVLINK_ATTR_PARAM_VALUE_DATA)
> + return MNL_CB_OK;
> +
> + if (arr->size >= DEVLINK_PARAM_MAX_ARRAY_SIZE)
> + return MNL_CB_ERROR;
> +
> + len = mnl_attr_get_payload_len(attr);
> + if (len == sizeof(uint32_t))
> + arr->val[arr->size++] = mnl_attr_get_u32(attr);
> + else if (len == sizeof(uint64_t))
> + arr->val[arr->size++] = mnl_attr_get_u64(attr);
> + else
> + return MNL_CB_ERROR;
> +
> + return MNL_CB_OK;
> +}
> +
> +static int param_value_u64_array_fill(struct nlattr *nl,
> + struct devlink_param_u64_array *arr)
> +{
> + int err;
> +
> + arr->size = 0;
> + err = mnl_attr_parse_nested(nl, param_value_nested_u64_attr_cb, arr);
> + if (err != MNL_CB_OK)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static bool param_value_u64_array_equal(const struct devlink_param_u64_array *a,
> + const struct devlink_param_u64_array *b)
> +{
> + uint64_t i;
> +
> + if (a->size != b->size)
> + return false;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < a->size; i++) {
> + if (a->val[i] != b->val[i])
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> +static int param_value_u64_array_put_from_str(struct nlmsghdr *nlh,
> + const char *param_value,
> + const struct devlink_param_u64_array *cur)
> +{
> + struct devlink_param_u64_array new_arr = {};
> + char *copy, *token, *saveptr = NULL;
> + char delim[] = " ,";
> + uint64_t val;
> + int err;
> +
> + copy = strdup(param_value);
> + if (!copy)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + token = strtok_r(copy, delim, &saveptr);
> + while (token) {
> + if (new_arr.size >= DEVLINK_PARAM_MAX_ARRAY_SIZE) {
> + free(copy);
> + pr_err("Too many array elements (max %d)\n",
> + DEVLINK_PARAM_MAX_ARRAY_SIZE);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> + err = get_u64((__u64 *)&val, token, 10);
> + if (err) {
> + free(copy);
> + pr_err("Value \"%s\" is not a number or not within range\n",
> + token);
> + return err;
> + }
> + new_arr.val[new_arr.size++] = val;
> + token = strtok_r(NULL, delim, &saveptr);
> + }
> + free(copy);
> +
> + if (cur && param_value_u64_array_equal(&new_arr, cur))
> + return 1;
> +
> + for (uint64_t i = 0; i < new_arr.size; i++)
put the declaration at the top of the function with the rest of them.
global comment; fix all of them.
> + mnl_attr_put_u64(nlh, DEVLINK_ATTR_PARAM_VALUE_DATA, new_arr.val[i]);
Why can't this put be done in the loop above as the string is processed?
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
>
> static int pr_out_param_value_print(const char *nla_name, int nla_type,
> struct nlattr *val_attr, bool conv_exists,
> - const char *label, bool flag_as_u8)
> + const char *label, bool flag_as_u8, struct nlattr *nl)
> {
> + struct devlink_param_u64_array u64_arr = { };
> const char *vstr;
> - int err;
> + char buffer[1024];
> + int err, cnt = 0;
>
> print_string(PRINT_FP, NULL, " %s ", label);
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-06-30 14:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-06-30 1:50 [PATCH iproute2-next v2 0/2] devlink: support u64-array devlink parameters Ratheesh Kannoth
2026-06-30 1:50 ` [PATCH iproute2-next v2 1/2] devlink: use DEVLINK_VAR_ATTR_TYPE_* in param show/set Ratheesh Kannoth
2026-06-30 1:50 ` [PATCH iproute2-next v2 2/2] devlink: support u64-array values in devlink " Ratheesh Kannoth
2026-06-30 14:36 ` David Ahern [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=9d9cceae-3934-4dd6-ae8e-af995ae6b0ab@kernel.org \
--to=dsahern@kernel.org \
--cc=andrew+netdev@lunn.ch \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=jiri@resnulli.us \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=rkannoth@marvell.com \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
/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