lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v10 5/7] PCI: handle SR-IOV Virtual Function Migration
    On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 05:13:41AM +0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
    > On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 02:54:46PM +0800, Yu Zhao wrote:
    > > +static int sriov_migration(struct pci_dev *dev)
    > > +{
    > > + u16 status;
    > > + struct pci_sriov *iov = dev->sriov;
    > > +
    > > + if (!iov->nr_virtfn)
    > > + return 0;
    > > +
    > > + if (!(iov->cap & PCI_SRIOV_CAP_VFM))
    > > + return 0;
    > > +
    > > + pci_read_config_word(iov->self, iov->pos + PCI_SRIOV_STATUS, &status);
    >
    > You passed in dev here, you don't need to use iov->self, right?

    Will do.

    > > + if (!(status & PCI_SRIOV_STATUS_VFM))
    > > + return 0;
    > > +
    > > + schedule_work(&iov->mtask);
    > > +
    > > + return 1;
    > > +}
    >
    > > +/**
    > > + * pci_sriov_migration - notify SR-IOV core of Virtual Function Migration
    > > + * @dev: the PCI device
    > > + *
    > > + * Returns IRQ_HANDLED if the IRQ is handled, or IRQ_NONE if not.
    > > + *
    > > + * Physical Function driver is responsible to register IRQ handler using
    > > + * VF Migration Interrupt Message Number, and call this function when the
    > > + * interrupt is generated by the hardware.
    > > + */
    > > +irqreturn_t pci_sriov_migration(struct pci_dev *dev)
    > > +{
    > > + if (!dev->sriov)
    > > + return IRQ_NONE;
    > > +
    > > + return sriov_migration(dev) ? IRQ_HANDLED : IRQ_NONE;
    > > +}
    > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_sriov_migration);
    >
    > OK, I think I get it -- you've basically written an interrupt handler
    > for the driver to call from its interrupt handler. Am I right in
    > thinking that the reason the driver needs to do the interrupt handler
    > here is because we don't currently have an interface that looks like:
    >
    > int pci_get_msix_interrupt(struct pci_dev *dev, unsigned vector);
    >
    > ? If so, we should probably add it; I want it for my MSI-X rewrite
    > anyway.

    Right, we really need this function. But I guess we still have to keep the
    handler in case the PF only has MSI, right?

    Thanks,
    Yu


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-03-09 09:31    [W:0.035 / U:0.228 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site