[lkml]   [2013]   [Oct]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC 00/77] Re-design MSI/MSI-X interrupts enablement pattern
On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 12:48 +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> This series is against "next" branch in Bjorn's repo:
> git://
> Currently pci_enable_msi_block() and pci_enable_msix() interfaces
> return a error code in case of failure, 0 in case of success and a
> positive value which indicates the number of MSI-X/MSI interrupts
> that could have been allocated. The latter value should be passed
> to a repeated call to the interfaces until a failure or success:
> for (i = 0; i < FOO_DRIVER_MAXIMUM_NVEC; i++)
> adapter->msix_entries[i].entry = i;
> while (nvec >= FOO_DRIVER_MINIMUM_NVEC) {
> rc = pci_enable_msix(adapter->pdev,
> adapter->msix_entries, nvec);
> if (rc > 0)
> nvec = rc;
> else
> return rc;
> }
> return -ENOSPC;
> This technique proved to be confusing and error-prone. Vast share
> of device drivers simply fail to follow the described guidelines.
> This update converts pci_enable_msix() and pci_enable_msi_block()
> interfaces to canonical kernel functions and makes them return a
> error code in case of failure or 0 in case of success.

I think this is fundamentally flawed: pci_msix_table_size() and
pci_get_msi_cap() can only report the limits of the *device* (which the
driver usually already knows), whereas MSI allocation can also be
constrained due to *global* limits on the number of distinct IRQs.

Currently pci_enable_msix() will report a positive value if it fails due
to the global limit. Your patch 7 removes that. pci_enable_msi_block()
unfortunately doesn't appear to do this.

It seems to me that a more useful interface would take a minimum and
maximum number of vectors from the driver. This wouldn't allow the
driver to specify that it could only accept, say, any even number within
a certain range, but you could still leave the current functions
available for any driver that needs that.


Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.

 \ /
  Last update: 2013-10-04 01:01    [W:0.320 / U:41.096 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site