lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Oct]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC 00/77] Re-design MSI/MSI-X interrupts enablement pattern
    On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 09:28:27AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
    > On 10/10/2013 03:17 AM, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
    > > On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 03:24:08PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
    > >
    > > Ok, this suggestion sounded in one or another form by several people.
    > > What about name it pcim_enable_msix_range() and wrap in couple more
    > > helpers to complete an API:
    > >
    > > int pcim_enable_msix_range(pdev, msix_entries, nvec, minvec);
    > > <0 - error code
    > > >0 - number of MSIs allocated, where minvec >= result <= nvec
    > >
    > > int pcim_enable_msix(pdev, msix_entries, nvec);
    > > <0 - error code
    > > >0 - number of MSIs allocated, where 1 >= result <= nvec
    > >
    > > int pcim_enable_msix_exact(pdev, msix_entries, nvec);
    > > <0 - error code
    > > >0 - number of MSIs allocated, where result == nvec
    > >
    > > The latter's return value seems odd, but I can not help to make
    > > it consistent with the first two.
    > >
    >
    > Is there a reason for the wrappers, as opposed to just specifying either
    > 1 or nvec as the minimum?

    The wrappers are more handy IMO.

    I.e. can imagine people start struggling to figure out what minvec to provide:
    1 or 0? Why 1? Oh.. okay.. Or should we tolerate 0 (as opposite to -ERANGE)?

    Well, do not know.. pcim_enable_msix(pdev, msix_entries, nvec, nvec) is
    less readable for me than just pcim_enable_msix_exact(pdev, msix_entries,
    nvec).

    > -hpa

    --
    Regards,
    Alexander Gordeev
    agordeev@redhat.com


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2013-10-10 23:21    [W:2.207 / U:0.224 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site