On Fri, Oct 16, 2026 at 03:49:13PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Wed, 7 Oct 2026 13:33:53 +0530 Aravind Iddamsetty wrote: > > + - > > + name: retired-resource-attrs > > + attributes: > > + - > > + name: node-id > > + type: u32 > > + doc: Node ID targeted by this retired resource operation. > > + - > > + name: vram-page > > + type: nest > > + nested-attributes: vram-page-attrs > > why wrap attrs in a nest? Are you planning to add other resource types > (than a page)? It's a common anti-pattern in Netlink to over-wrap stuff.
we should indeed remove the wrap and have only the page info. > > > + doc: >- > > + Type-specific payload. The resource type is identified by the > > + node (its node-name); each node reports a single resource > > type. > > + - > > + name: vram-page-attrs > > + attributes: > > + - > > + name: address > > + type: u64 > > + doc: Device address of the retired VRAM page (e.g. DPA). > > + - > > + name: size > > + type: u64 > > prefer uint > > > + doc: Size of the retired VRAM page in bytes. > > + - > > + name: max-pages > > + type: u32 > > + doc: >- > > + Maximum VRAM pages that can be retired. Present only in the > > + leading summary entry of the dump (no address/size/status). > > + - > > + name: status > > + type: u32 > > + doc: Retirement status of the retired VRAM page. > > + enum: retired-resource-status > > + - > > + name: pad > > + type: pad > > And then you won't need pad I noticed this in the review prompts, but I have some reservations here. We know for sure our value is always u64 because it is our hw definition. I don't see a good reason why not use the exact size that matches our hw.
