[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <pj3m2f53zs47z2i6se4qaqs6izwfsgssnslna7ik7t2my3lpcr@7jyvaialnjxq>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2025 05:59:10 -0800
From: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
To: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
Cc: Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>,
Pavan Chebbi <pavan.chebbi@...adcom.com>, Michael Chan <mchan@...adcom.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...a.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] tg3: extract GRXRINGS from .get_rxnfc
On Fri, Nov 07, 2025 at 11:04:22AM +0000, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 06, 2025 at 10:45:21AM -0800, Michael Chan wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 6, 2025 at 9:06 AM Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org> wrote:
> > > tg3: Fix num of RX queues being reported by ethtool
> > >
> > > Using num_online_cpus() to report number of queues is actually not
> > > correct, as reported by Michael[1].
> > >
> > > netif_get_num_default_rss_queues() was used to replace num_online_cpus()
> > > in the past, but tg3 ethtool callbacks didn't get converted. Doing it
> > > now.
> > >
> > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CACKFLim7ruspmqvjr6bNRq5Z_XXVk3vVaLZOons7kMCzsEG23A@mail.gmail.com/#t [1]
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
> > > Suggested-by: Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/tg3.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/tg3.c
> > > index fa58c3ffceb06..5fdaee7ef9d7a 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/tg3.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/tg3.c
> > > @@ -12729,7 +12729,7 @@ static u32 tg3_get_rx_ring_count(struct net_device *dev)
> > > if (netif_running(tp->dev))
> > > return tp->rxq_cnt;
> > >
> > > - return min(num_online_cpus(), TG3_RSS_MAX_NUM_QS);
> > > + return min((u32) netif_get_num_default_rss_queues(), tp->rxq_max);
> >
> > Isn't it better to use min_t()?
>
> FWIIW, umin() seems appropriate to me.
>
> Commit 80fcac55385c ("minmax: add umin(a, b) and umax(a, b)")
> includes quite a long explanation of why it exists.
> And that does seem to match this case.
I've send the patch using `min_t` in [1] before this reply, and if
I don't hear any concern about replacing min_t by umin(), I will update
that patch with umin().
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251107-tg3_counts-v1-1-337fe5c8ccb7@debian.org/ [1]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists