On 10/12/2024 8:13 AM, Simon Horman wrote:
> + David Laight
>
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 02:03:57PM +0200, Michal Swiatkowski wrote:
>> Remove the field to allow having more queues than MSI-X on VSI. As
>> default the number will be the same, but if there won't be more MSI-X
>> available VSI can run with at least one MSI-X.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Wojciech Drewek <wojciech.dre...@intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Michal Swiatkowski <michal.swiatkow...@linux.intel.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice.h | 1 -
>> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_base.c | 10 +++-----
>> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_ethtool.c | 8 +++---
>> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_irq.c | 11 +++------
>> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_lib.c | 26 +++++++++++---------
>> 5 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice.h
>> b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice.h
>> index cf824d041d5a..1e23aec2634f 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice.h
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice.h
>> @@ -622,7 +622,6 @@ struct ice_pf {
>> u16 max_pf_txqs; /* Total Tx queues PF wide */
>> u16 max_pf_rxqs; /* Total Rx queues PF wide */
>> struct ice_pf_msix msix;
>> - u16 num_lan_msix; /* Total MSIX vectors for base driver */
>> u16 num_lan_tx; /* num LAN Tx queues setup */
>> u16 num_lan_rx; /* num LAN Rx queues setup */
>> u16 next_vsi; /* Next free slot in pf->vsi[] - 0-based! */
>
> ...
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_ethtool.c
>> b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_ethtool.c
>> index 85a3b2326e7b..e5c56ec8bbda 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_ethtool.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_ethtool.c
>> @@ -3811,8 +3811,8 @@ ice_get_ts_info(struct net_device *dev, struct
>> kernel_ethtool_ts_info *info)
>> */
>> static int ice_get_max_txq(struct ice_pf *pf)
>> {
>> - return min3(pf->num_lan_msix, (u16)num_online_cpus(),
>> - (u16)pf->hw.func_caps.common_cap.num_txq);
>> + return min_t(u16, num_online_cpus(),
>> + pf->hw.func_caps.common_cap.num_txq);
>
> It is unclear why min_t() is used here or elsewhere in this patch
> instead of min() as it seems that all the entities being compared
> are unsigned. Are you concerned about overflowing u16? If so, perhaps
> clamp, or some error handling, is a better approach.
>
> I am concerned that the casting that min_t() brings will hide
> any problems that may exist.
>
Ya, I think min makes more sense. min_t was likely selected out of habit
or looking at other examples in the driver.
