From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail1.fiberby.net (mail1.fiberby.net [193.104.135.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0255D1DE4C4; Tue, 21 Oct 2025 22:54:16 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.104.135.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761087260; cv=none; b=O83x0LqM7/IxZxThUGSHWCQQ2puJx+O5fn/s/Mn65ecQSB1/O0mPj789D/zz+KK0lu0ViExoqZQaFX7o7F+cySZUxyso7G13aiLSWJwxgEzBBMjc6LH24xhcz+x60NvfWqPIe4GQo1CtCXUif6wCgV/IseENeQAZgTiVosWB9c4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761087260; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Mz6ppVPbPpZy4N6bSRCqo74i7MJXXQUsttNkV9dweYM=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=OxdwjhmlYGv+qXJ/Ho919KXo3AHCSRRMu2qJzjGPDhisJH43nQWSEKUckx2jNMIXkUuio6Gw/qNbPmK5UO4DOpPCckPTIEGqC3AYNgqa9Q4siO9MVAFS1W7pUBu7sGLSv+m0G2TgCjgnblabGdSTrMqcRSK1UgyjI/wBci8jNzw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=fiberby.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=fiberby.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fiberby.net header.i=@fiberby.net header.b=Ec9Wg9hN; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.104.135.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=fiberby.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=fiberby.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fiberby.net header.i=@fiberby.net header.b="Ec9Wg9hN" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=fiberby.net; s=202008; t=1761087248; bh=Mz6ppVPbPpZy4N6bSRCqo74i7MJXXQUsttNkV9dweYM=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=Ec9Wg9hN1I0HzLAu495AZ/VzRkMZBnsY6sJvrjdRhk3OgIRMcLwWwMjLAlB5ZxWno 1AHjxr9dwaSHcjWpeUOnvXlQKKxQ/6/3odaD93jlGQWQmS+quC66sgFffYknCdgrEF 9kH3iacZsWkDZvRMvLIU59+w3pVXRox8Qotk99HYNTVSagje6cv/C9ttLrb33aWMOW o83xSzxSOMLln1h5Zcre3P+9Z+HyL/JLwc2utFvqrvGsnYAgssLAt8tkLU3jNhVLw2 9h4soE8Io+f1b7F4EEsGo2ryfVSjdO5xMIP0bZ9ygINGuUP4xjl2T6gKn1Y+NgJVI7 63J/metiOCNUg== Received: from x201s (193-104-135-243.ip4.fiberby.net [193.104.135.243]) by mail1.fiberby.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 29D096000C; Tue, 21 Oct 2025 22:53:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by x201s (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84F52200ABF; Tue, 21 Oct 2025 22:52:57 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2025 22:52:56 +0000 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] tools: ynl: add start-index property for indexed arrays To: Zahari Doychev , Jakub Kicinski , jacob.e.keller@intel.com Cc: donald.hunter@gmail.com, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com, horms@kernel.org, matttbe@kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jhs@mojatatu.com, xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com, jiri@resnulli.us, johannes@sipsolutions.net References: <20251018151737.365485-1-zahari.doychev@linux.com> <20251018151737.365485-5-zahari.doychev@linux.com> <20251020163221.2c8347ea@kernel.org> <75gog4sxd6oommzndamgddjbz3jrrrpbmnd4rhxg4khjg3rnnp@tlciirwh5cig> Content-Language: en-US From: =?UTF-8?Q?Asbj=C3=B8rn_Sloth_T=C3=B8nnesen?= In-Reply-To: <75gog4sxd6oommzndamgddjbz3jrrrpbmnd4rhxg4khjg3rnnp@tlciirwh5cig> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 10/21/25 5:50 PM, Zahari Doychev wrote: > On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 04:32:21PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: >> We need to be selective about what API stupidity we try to >> cover up in YNL. Otherwise the specs will be unmanageably complex. >> IMO this one should be a comment in the spec explaining that action >> 0 is ignore and that's it. >> > > I am not sure if this applies for all cases of indexed arrays. For sure > it applies for the tc_act_attrs case but I need to check the rest again. > > Do you think it would be fine to start from 1 for all indexed arrays? I have a series, that I will try to get posted tomorrow, where I add a new attribute `ignore-index` which can be used to mark indexed arrays where the index is just an incremental value. This is a follow-up to an earlier discussion[1]. In that series, in order to add the new attribute to the existing specs, in the commit messages I walk through all the existing indexed arrays, and also include things like if they start their indexes from 0 or 1. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/7fff6b2f-f17e-4179-8507-397b76ea24bb@intel.com/