Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-57011-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2024 12:23:23 -0800
From: Joe Damato <jdamato@fastly.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	chuck.lever@oracle.com, jlayton@kernel.org,
	linux-api@vger.kernel.org, brauner@kernel.org, edumazet@google.com,
	davem@davemloft.net, alexander.duyck@gmail.com,
	sridhar.samudrala@intel.com, willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com,
	weiwan@google.com, David.Laight@ACULAB.COM, arnd@arndb.de,
	sdf@google.com, amritha.nambiar@intel.com,
	Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
	"open list:FILESYSTEMS (VFS and infrastructure)" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 1/4] eventpoll: support busy poll per epoll
 instance
Message-ID: <20240207202323.GA1283@fastly.com>
References: <20240205210453.11301-1-jdamato@fastly.com>
 <20240205210453.11301-2-jdamato@fastly.com>
 <20240207110413.0cfedc37@kernel.org>
 <20240207191407.GA1313@fastly.com>
 <20240207121124.12941ed9@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240207121124.12941ed9@kernel.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)

On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 12:11:24PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 11:14:08 -0800 Joe Damato wrote:
> > > Why do we need u64 for usecs? I think u16 would do, and u32 would give
> > > a very solid "engineering margin". If it was discussed in previous
> > > versions I think it's worth explaining in the commit message.  
> > 
> > In patch 4/4 the value is limited to U32_MAX, but if you prefer I use a u32
> > here instead, I can make that change.
> 
> Unless you have a clear reason not to, I think using u32 would be more
> natural? If my head math is right the range for u32 is 4096 sec,
> slightly over an hour? I'd use u32 and limit it to S32_MAX.

OK, that seems fine. Sorry for the noob question, but since that represents
a fucntional change to patch 4/4, I believe I would need to drop Jiri's
Reviewed-by, is that right?