On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 6:26 AM, Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 06:08:03PM -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >> I skimmed these and the scsi patches, and I think you were right in >> proposing an MSI-X enable function that takes a single "number of vectors" >> argument, in addition to pci_enable_msix_range(), which takes a minimum and >> a maximum. Obviously the pci_enable_msix_fixed() or whatever could be a >> simple #define wrapper or something. >> >> Of the fifty-some net and scsi patches, I counted 23 that use the min == >> max pattern, and it seems a shame to have to repeat that expression. > > (un-CCing netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) > > Hi Bjorn, > > I propose pci_enable_msix_exact(pdev, entries, nvec) rather than > pci_enable_msix_fixed(). OK, that sounds fine. > Do you prefer this one to return 0/-errno or nvec/-errno? 0/-errno seems right to me. We are asking for a very specific thing, and returning nvec doesn't give the caller any additional information (since the caller supplied nvec in the first place), so simple success/failure is what I would expect. > Do you want pci_enable_msi_exact() in addition to pci_enable_msix_exact()? If there are cases where pci_enable_msi_exact() would be used, I guess the same arguments would apply, so yes. I haven't looked at the archives, but I have this nagging feeling that this is exactly what you proposed initially, and I had some objection. If so, I'm sorry about changing my mind :) 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
