Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [iwl-net PATCH v2] idpf: change IRQ naming to match netdev and ethtool queue numbering

[Jacob Keller]

On 1/26/2026 9:53 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 12:40:15PM -0500, Brian Vazquez wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 11:24 AM Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 02:46:24PM +0000, Brian Vazquez wrote:
> > > > The code uses the vidx for the IRQ name but that doesn't match ethtool
> > > > reporting or netdev naming, this makes it hard to tune the device and
> > > > associate queues with IRQs. Sequentially requesting irqs starting from
> > > > '0' makes the output consistent.
> > > >
> > > > Before:
> > > >
> > > > ethtool -L eth1 tx 1 combined 3
> > > >
> > > > grep . /proc/irq/*/*idpf*/../smp_affinity_list
> > > > /proc/irq/67/idpf-Mailbox-0/../smp_affinity_list:0-55,112-167
> > > > /proc/irq/68/idpf-eth1-TxRx-1/../smp_affinity_list:0
> > > > /proc/irq/70/idpf-eth1-TxRx-3/../smp_affinity_list:1
> > > > /proc/irq/71/idpf-eth1-TxRx-4/../smp_affinity_list:2
> > > > /proc/irq/72/idpf-eth1-Tx-5/../smp_affinity_list:3
> > > >
> > > > ethtool -S eth1 | grep -v ': 0'
> > > > NIC statistics:
> > > >       tx_q-0_pkts: 1002
> > > >       tx_q-1_pkts: 2679
> > > >       tx_q-2_pkts: 1113
> > > >       tx_q-3_pkts: 1192 <----- tx_q-3 vs idpf-eth1-Tx-5
> > > >       rx_q-0_pkts: 1143
> > > >       rx_q-1_pkts: 3172
> > > >       rx_q-2_pkts: 1074
> > > >
> > > > After:
> > > >
> > > > ethtool -L eth1 tx 1 combined 3
> > > >
> > > > grep . /proc/irq/*/*idpf*/../smp_affinity_list
> > > >
> > > > /proc/irq/67/idpf-Mailbox-0/../smp_affinity_list:0-55,112-167
> > > > /proc/irq/68/idpf-eth1-TxRx-0/../smp_affinity_list:0
> > > > /proc/irq/70/idpf-eth1-TxRx-1/../smp_affinity_list:1
> > > > /proc/irq/71/idpf-eth1-TxRx-2/../smp_affinity_list:2
> > > > /proc/irq/72/idpf-eth1-Tx-3/../smp_affinity_list:3
> > > >
> > > > ethtool -S eth1 | grep -v ': 0'
> > > > NIC statistics:
> > > >       tx_q-0_pkts: 118
> > > >       tx_q-1_pkts: 134
> > > >       tx_q-2_pkts: 228
> > > >       tx_q-3_pkts: 138 <--- tx_q-3 matches idpf-eth1-Tx-3
> > > >       rx_q-0_pkts: 111
> > > >       rx_q-1_pkts: 366
> > > >       rx_q-2_pkts: 120
> > >
> > > Are there any ABI issues here?
> >
> > The patch doesn't change the format, it just fixes the numbering in
> > the name to make it consistent with other reporting tools. It
> > shouldn't break any library.
>
> But is the numbering part of the ABI?
>
> Making a comment about ABI in the commit message makes it clear it is
> something you have considered, and you have decided it is not an
> issue. If there is no such comment, reviewers probably should ask.
>
>         Andrew

I don't see how an application can depend on the name if it can't 
correlate it to anything meaningful. The change fixes the ID values used 
so that they *do* correlate. If an application was previously assuming 
it correlated to the queue ID, it would incorrect associate the IRQ with 
the wrong queue.