On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 01:33:04PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 14:31:21 -0500 Joe Damato wrote: > > Actually, I missed a patch Jakub submit to net [1], which prevents > > dumping TX-only NAPIs. > > That patch only addresses NAPI ops, here I think we're talking about > attributes of the queue object. Yea, that's true. > > So, I think this RFC as-is (only calling netif_queue_set_napi > > for RX NAPIs) should be fine without changes. > > Weak preference towards making netdev_nl_queue_fill_one() "do the right > thing" when NAPI does not have ID assigned. And right thing IMO would > be to skip reporting the NAPI_ID attribute. Ah, right. Your patch was for netdev_nl_napi_fill_one, so presumably a similar patch would need to be written for netdev_nl_queue_fill_one. > Tx NAPIs are one aspect, whether they have ID or not we may want direct > access to the struct somewhere in the core, via txq, at some point, and > then people may forget the linking has an unintended effect of also > changing the netlink attrs. The other aspect is that driver may link > queue to a Rx NAPI instance before napi_enable(), so before ID is > assigned. Again, we don't want to report ID of 0 in that case. I'm sorry I'm not sure I'm following what you are saying here; I think there might be separate threads concurrently and I'm probably just confused :) I think you are saying that netdev_nl_napi_fill_one should not report 0, which I think is fine but probably a separate patch? I think, but am not sure, that Jason was asking for guidance on TX-only NAPIs and linking them with calls to netif_queue_set_napi. It seems that Jason may be suggesting that the driver shouldn't have to know that TX-only NAPIs have a NAPI ID of 0 and thus should call netif_queue_set_napi for all NAPIs and not have to deal think about TX-only NAPIs at all.
