On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:50 AM, Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:12:20PM -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> > - nvec = rc;
>> > - rc = pci_enable_msi_block(pdev, nvec);
>> > - if (rc)
>> > + if (pci_enable_msi_range(pdev, nvec, nvec) < 0)
>> > goto intx;
>> >
>> > return nvec;
>> >
>> > single_msi:
>> > - rc = pci_enable_msi(pdev);
>> > - if (rc)
>> > + if (pci_enable_msi_range(pdev, 1, 1) < 0)
>>
>> This part doesn't seem like an improvement. There are a hundred or so
>> callers of pci_enable_msi() that only want a single MSI. Is there any
>> benefit in changing them to use pci_enable_msi_range()?
>
> In this particular case it reads better to me as one sees on the screen
> pci_enable_msi_range(pdev, nvec, nvec) and pci_enable_msi_range(pdev, 1, 1)
> calls. That allows to avoid switching in mind between negative-or-positive
> return in the former call and negative-or-zero return from pci_enable_msi()
> if we had it.
>
> But in most cases when single MSI is enabled we do cause complication
> with the patterns below (which I expect I am going be hated for ;) ):
I don't want to touch those hundred pci_enable_msi() callers at all.
So I think we should have something like this:
/* Return 0 for success (one MSI enabled) or negative errno */
static inline int pci_enable_msi(struct pci_dev *dev)
{
int rc;
rc = pci_enable_msi_range(pdev, 1, 1);
if (rc == 1)
return 0;
return rc;
}
--
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
