From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexander Gordeev Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] PCI/MSI: Factor out pci_get_msi_cap() interface Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 17:40:42 +0200 Message-ID: <20130905154041.GD30984@dhcp-26-207.brq.redhat.com> References: <20130905130902.GA26314@htj.dyndns.org> <20130905150259.GA30984@dhcp-26-207.brq.redhat.com> <20130905150442.GA24148@htj.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130905150442.GA24148@htj.dyndns.org> Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Tejun Heo Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Joerg Roedel , Jan Beulich , Bjorn Helgaas List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 11:04:42AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > The thing is, do we even have cases where arch code returns positive > return to indicate possible partial allocation? If not, the whole > interface is convoluted for no good reason and we can just make > everything return 0 or -errno, which is a lot simpler. No? As I mentioned in my other note, at least PPC has a concept of MSI quota, so exceeding it would be the very case, I believe. > Thanks. > > -- > tejun -- Regards, Alexander Gordeev agordeev@redhat.com