On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 05:30:02PM -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >> > +int pci_auto_enable_msi_range(struct pci_dev *dev, struct msix_entry *entries, >> > + int minvec, int maxvec) > > [...] > >> > +If this function returns a positive number it indicates at least the >> > +returned number of MSI interrupts have been successfully allocated (it may >> > +have allocated more in order to satisfy the power-of-two requirement). >> >> I assume this means the return value may be larger than the "maxvec" >> requested, right? And the driver is free to use all the vectors up to the >> return value, even those above maxvec, right? > > No, the returned value may not be larger than the "maxvec" ever. This is just > paraphrasing the semantics of exisitng pci_enable_msi_block() interface - a > value written to MMC register might be larger than the returned value, but the > driver may not use the extra vectors it did not request. Then I think we should remove the "(it may have allocated more...)" text. If the driver can't use those extra vectors, they are an internal implementation detail, and mentioning them here will only cause confusion. The "at least" text should also be removed. From the driver's point of view, it can use exactly the number of interrupts returned. Bjorn -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
