Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 26 Jun 2004 09:27:14 +0100 | From | Christoph Hellwig <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH]2.6.7 MSI-X Update |
| |
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 06:38:37PM -0700, Roland Dreier wrote: > I like this new MSI patch much better since it has pci_disable_msi() > and pci_disable_msix() (as well as using pci_read_config_xxx instead > of bus ops), but I still feel the API is not quite right. I don't > think the pci_disable_msi() and pci_disable_msix() functions should > only be for error paths; I think that they should always be used to > undo the effect of pci_enable_msi() or pci_enable_msix() when a driver > is unloading, and that request()/free_irq() should not have any effect > on a device's MSI state.
Agreed. Non-symmetric APIs are very bad.
> As a concrete example, the e1000 net driver does request_irq() in its > e1000_up() function and free_irq() in its e1000_down() function. > Basically, the driver will do request_irq() when the user does > "ifconfig up" and free_irq() when the user does "ifconfig down".
Lots of networking drivers do that..
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |