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 <[email protected]> > > > Signed-off-by: Ahmed Zaki <[email protected]> > > > > 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.
