Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-121541-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Feedback-ID: i56a14606:Fastmail
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.11.0-alpha0-328-gc998c829b7-fm-20240325.002-gc998c829
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <6242198a-8559-4465-918a-36442ea03e32@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CO1PR18MB4666DF3B7684D340C3A3646DA1342@CO1PR18MB4666.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20240326223825.4084412-1-arnd@kernel.org>
 <20240326223825.4084412-4-arnd@kernel.org>
 <CO1PR18MB4666DF3B7684D340C3A3646DA1342@CO1PR18MB4666.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 16:34:31 +0100
From: "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de>
To: "Subbaraya Sundeep Bhatta" <sbhatta@marvell.com>,
 "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@kernel.org>,
 "llvm@lists.linux.dev" <llvm@lists.linux.dev>,
 "Ariel Elior" <aelior@marvell.com>, "Manish Chopra" <manishc@marvell.com>
Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
 "Eric Dumazet" <edumazet@google.com>, "Jakub Kicinski" <kuba@kernel.org>,
 "Paolo Abeni" <pabeni@redhat.com>, "Nathan Chancellor" <nathan@kernel.org>,
 "Nick Desaulniers" <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
 "Bill Wendling" <morbo@google.com>, "Justin Stitt" <justinstitt@google.com>,
 "Simon Horman" <horms@kernel.org>,
 "Konstantin Khorenko" <khorenko@virtuozzo.com>,
 "Sudarsana Reddy Kalluru" <sudarsana.kalluru@cavium.com>,
 Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
 "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [PATCH 3/9] qed: avoid truncating work queue length
Content-Type: text/plain

On Wed, Mar 27, 2024, at 15:04, Subbaraya Sundeep Bhatta wrote:

>>-		snprintf(name, NAME_SIZE, "slowpath-%02x:%02x.%02x",
>>-			 cdev->pdev->bus->number,
>>-			 PCI_SLOT(cdev->pdev->devfn), hwfn->abs_pf_id);
>>+		hwfn->slowpath_wq = alloc_workqueue("slowpath-
>>%02x:%02x.%02x",
>>+					 0, 0, cdev->pdev->bus->number,
>>+					 PCI_SLOT(cdev->pdev->devfn),
>>+					 hwfn->abs_pf_id);
>
> Confused. This should be alloc_workqueue("slowpath-%02x:%02x.%02x",  
> cdev->pdev->bus->number, PCI_SLOT(cdev->pdev->devfn), hwfn->abs_pf_id, 
> 0, 0);
> Right?

I still think my version is the right one here, see the
prototype:

__printf(1, 4) struct workqueue_struct *
alloc_workqueue(const char *fmt, unsigned int flags, int max_active, ...);

so the first argument in the format, while the printf arguments
start after the flags and max_active arguments that are still both
set to zero.

      Arnd