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 803A6207E03; Fri, 1 Aug 2025 23:13:28 +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=1754090008; cv=none; b=omQ6OTM1XSorGFC/LCRC8wTj3BH+9qa3QUhFlFnTJZjiY8BJ6byXDquRclF/rkQ2eu4oO80HoD3dcrCGiLdLORNVqAjEfKeuJwJOg5FSCrxFEaL8kmKV2luN/VLA+x1GBs4K7Gi/O5xmAf62vpOPLmj02T0VOpAQklFBydkz/1U= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754090008; c=relaxed/simple; bh=PbmVT+aZ97NnJsYCnw1t/hlWOFNuS1awopSGnf7MeIs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=oC1nrJpaeWrZhK73SkqZQWP1jUBUXHU2fV079M/lCLbWVzznfJVFqY5J5r9Yfr3S5SPwjua3TDMiNQm/qUjZ4shQncQFqTtc93qIz6jBYcqx1rS8PVeeeYzqHuICSPzOYb1IHJIqUdsV+FgSzs1DALYPfKRGLKMRnK2dFWikoAE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=a03KvqCc; 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="a03KvqCc" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 796B6C4CEE7; Fri, 1 Aug 2025 23:13:27 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1754090008; bh=PbmVT+aZ97NnJsYCnw1t/hlWOFNuS1awopSGnf7MeIs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=a03KvqCcA6AsOzfJsa8AEV1/rG+HvYRORZ3L4tzVubNbZFaWla1kMULUhYoG3NI+O 8H2YGfVFbhiZk+850/6o3y/Oizg6KyKANK6LOGeUf2PQ89NyMu1q74MsASx9zPo8Uw C2FT0YSTp41xrUKYpm6srGAV+JxGSYSHAEn7nK2CiBvfcD2epIyBuVeH5gWnO5e6Qi ixykn898TIeLhT71eMDEDNWbwr/msOGw03KqOC6BpBNsOXZdtHo8YE25c9aQdtsOOD WcEFfCZjphuEhhcc3a70E2CgEkQnvD78ZJJquROHsGjWxyw/HDU8krIT0wMG+oD3/H cgitqFNpeU+Nw== Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2025 16:13:26 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Mina Almasry Cc: Pavel Begunkov , netdev@vger.kernel.org, io-uring@vger.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet , Willem de Bruijn , Paolo Abeni , andrew+netdev@lunn.ch, horms@kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, sdf@fomichev.me, dw@davidwei.uk, michael.chan@broadcom.com, dtatulea@nvidia.com, ap420073@gmail.com Subject: Re: [RFC v1 01/22] docs: ethtool: document that rx_buf_len must control payload lengths Message-ID: <20250801161326.6dd670be@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: io-uring@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 Mon, 28 Jul 2025 14:36:37 -0700 Mina Almasry wrote: > > +``ETHTOOL_A_RINGS_RX_BUF_LEN`` controls the size of the buffer chunks driver > > +uses to receive packets. If the device uses different memory polls for headers > > +and payload this setting may control the size of the header buffers but must > > +control the size of the payload buffers. > > + > > To be honest I'm not a big fan of the ambiguity here? Could this > configure just the payload buffer sizes? And a new one to configure > the header buffer sizes eventually? > > Also, IIUC in this patchset, actually the size applied will be the > order that is larger than the size configured, no? So a setting of 9KB > will actually result in 16KB, no? Should this be documented? Or do we > expect non power of 2 sizes to be rejected by the driver and this API > fail? This is an existing parameter.