Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] net: enetc: change the statistics of ring to unsigned long type

[Simon Horman]

On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 01:49:59AM +0000, Wei Fang wrote:
> > >  struct enetc_ring_stats {
> > > -	unsigned int packets;
> > > -	unsigned int bytes;
> > > -	unsigned int rx_alloc_errs;
> > > -	unsigned int xdp_drops;
> > > -	unsigned int xdp_tx;
> > > -	unsigned int xdp_tx_drops;
> > > -	unsigned int xdp_redirect;
> > > -	unsigned int xdp_redirect_failures;
> > > -	unsigned int recycles;
> > > -	unsigned int recycle_failures;
> > > -	unsigned int win_drop;
> > > +	unsigned long packets;
> > > +	unsigned long bytes;
> > > +	unsigned long rx_alloc_errs;
> > > +	unsigned long xdp_drops;
> > > +	unsigned long xdp_tx;
> > > +	unsigned long xdp_tx_drops;
> > > +	unsigned long xdp_redirect;
> > > +	unsigned long xdp_redirect_failures;
> > > +	unsigned long recycles;
> > > +	unsigned long recycle_failures;
> > > +	unsigned long win_drop;
> > >  };
> > 
> > Hi Wei fang,
> > 
> > If the desire is for an unsigned 64 bit integer, then I think either u64 or unsigned
> > long long would be good choices.
> > 
> > unsigned long may be 64bit or 32bit depending on the platform.
> 
> The use of unsigned long is to keep it consistent with the statistical
> value type in struct net_device_stats. Because some statistics in
> net_device_stats come from enetc_ring_stats.
> 
> #define NET_DEV_STAT(FIELD)			\
> 	union {					\
> 		unsigned long FIELD;		\
> 		atomic_long_t __##FIELD;	\
> 	}

Thanks, I understand. But in this case I think the patch description could
be reworded - unsigned int and unsigned long are the same thing on some
systems, and on such systems there is no overflow advantage of one over the
other.