On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 10:45:01 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Jiri, I'm not aware of any other devices with this sort of trade off. >> We shouldn't add the param if either: >> - this can be changed dynamically as user instantiates rate limiters; >> - we know other devices have similar needs. >> If neither of those is true, param seems fine to me.. > > Where is this policy documented? If not, could you please? Let's make > this policy clear for now and for the future.
Because you think it's good as a policy or because not so much? Both of the points are a judgment call, at least from upstream perspective since we're working with very limited information. So enshrining this as a "policy" is not very practical. Do you recall any specific param that got rejected from mlx5? Y'all were allowed to add the eq sizing params, which I think is not going to be mlx5-only for long. Otherwise I only remember cases where I'd try to push people to use the resource API, which IMO is better for setting limits and delegating resources.
