On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 11:24 AM Andrew Lunn <[email protected]> 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. > Andrew
