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

[Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>]

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@lunn.ch> 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