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

[Eric Dumazet]

On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 9:46 PM Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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.

Agree, this mismatch caused me some surprises, we can not keep a broken
ABI (which has been broken by accident)