On 21/05/2025 1:53, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
A few quick comments here as the test is failing
On Tue, 20 May 2025 21:38:02 +0300 Tariq Toukan wrote:
+ -
+ name: rate-tc-bws
+ type: nest
+ multi-attr: true
+ nested-attributes: dl-rate-tc-bws
+ -
+ name: rate-tc-index
+ type: u8
+ checks:
+ min: 0
+ max: rate-tc-index-max
no need for min: 0 on an unsigned type ?
Will remove them.
+ -
+ name: rate-tc-bw
+ type: u32
+ doc: |
+ Specifies the bandwidth allocation for the Traffic Class as a
+ percentage.
+ checks:
+ min: 0
+ max: 100
Why in percentage? I don't think any existing param in devlink rate
or net shapers is in percentage right? Not according to what i can
grok about the uAPI.
I thought percentage might fit better here because it lets users clearly
set the bandwidth share for each traffic class. While this isn’t the
same as tx_weight in devlink-rate, the idea is related since both use
relative values. If there isn’t a strong reason against it, I’d like to
keep using percentages here.
+static int devlink_nl_rate_tc_bw_parse(struct nlattr *parent_nest, u32 *tc_bw,
+ unsigned long *bitmap, struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
+{
+ struct nlattr *tb[DEVLINK_ATTR_MAX + 1];
+ u8 tc_index;
+
+ nla_parse_nested(tb, DEVLINK_ATTR_MAX, parent_nest, devlink_dl_rate_tc_bws_nl_policy,
Let's error check this, I get that we already validated via the policy
but what if we do memory allocations during parsing one day, or some
other failure-prone operation.. better check the return value.
Ack. will do.
nit: over 80 chars for no good reason, the line overflows anyway.
Please use checkpatch --max-line-width=80 for core code,
at the very least.
I noticed the current code already goes over 80 chars, but I’ll update
it to follow the 80-char limit. Will fix, thanks.
+ extack);
+ if (!tb[DEVLINK_ATTR_RATE_TC_INDEX]) {
+ NL_SET_ERR_ATTR_MISS(extack, parent_nest, DEVLINK_ATTR_RATE_TC_INDEX);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+
+ tc_index = nla_get_u8(tb[DEVLINK_ATTR_RATE_TC_INDEX]);
+
+ if (!tb[DEVLINK_ATTR_RATE_TC_BW]) {
+ NL_SET_ERR_ATTR_MISS(extack, parent_nest, DEVLINK_ATTR_RATE_TC_BW);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+
+ if (test_and_set_bit(tc_index, bitmap)) {
+ NL_SET_ERR_MSG_FMT(extack, "Duplicate traffic class index specified (%u)",
+ tc_index);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+
+ tc_bw[tc_index] = nla_get_u32(tb[DEVLINK_ATTR_RATE_TC_BW]);
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static int devlink_nl_rate_tc_bw_set(struct devlink_rate *devlink_rate,
+ struct genl_info *info)
+{
+ DECLARE_BITMAP(bitmap, DEVLINK_RATE_TCS_MAX) = {};
+ struct devlink *devlink = devlink_rate->devlink;
+ const struct devlink_ops *ops = devlink->ops;
+ int rem, err = -EOPNOTSUPP, i, total = 0;
+ u32 tc_bw[DEVLINK_RATE_TCS_MAX] = {};
+ struct nlattr *attr;
+
+ nla_for_each_attr(attr, genlmsg_data(info->genlhdr),
+ genlmsg_len(info->genlhdr), rem) {
nla_for_each_attr_type() ?
or better still add a _type() version of nlmsg_for_each_attr() ?
Good point, thanks. I’ll add a _type() version for nlmsg_for_each_attr.
Do you prefer this to be part of this patch or should I send it as a
separate patch?
+ if (nla_type(attr) == DEVLINK_ATTR_RATE_TC_BWS) {
+ err = devlink_nl_rate_tc_bw_parse(attr, tc_bw, bitmap, info->extack);
+ if (err)
+ return err;
+ }
+ }
