On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 09:39:54 -0700 Bobby Eshleman wrote:

...

BTW did you add both min and max checks? Cause the only risk with using a dummy value would be that the policy will be rendered inline, and inline policy is u16 so 64k wouldn't fit. But your sample above has a max of u32_max which forces the out-of-line policy, which is what we want.

Yep, u32_max:

• name: rx-page-size
  

...

•    checks:
  

•      min: page-size
  

•      max: u32-max
  
  

Sorry, probably should have just sent the whole patch instead of replying hunk-by-hunk.

Ack, LG, just double checking.

BTW, how expressive do we want these policies? For example, would absorbing the power_of_2 check into a policy be valid in the future? or is that too bespoke?

Power-of-2 could be useful (it's implicitly one bit set, which is also potentially useful for validating one-hot flags). The trickiness is combining power-of-2 and the min check :S We have one validation per field. I was wondering if we would be better off defining the field as a shift instead, then we only have to check min. But I thought that it'd be a little unusual for uAPI and possibly maybe one day we will want the non-power of 2? So I figured checking min using the existing facilities and open coding power of two check is good enough for now.