From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: agordeev@redhat.com (Alexander Gordeev) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 09:56:59 +0200 Subject: [PATCH RFC 05/77] PCI/MSI: Convert pci_msix_table_size() to a public interface In-Reply-To: <20131007181043.GA27396@htj.dyndns.org> References: <20131007181043.GA27396@htj.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <20131008075658.GE10669@dhcp-26-207.brq.redhat.com> On Mon, Oct 07, 2013@02:10:43PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Wed, Oct 02, 2013@12:48:21PM +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote: > > Make pci_msix_table_size() to return a error code if the device > > does not support MSI-X. This update is needed to facilitate a > > forthcoming re-design MSI/MSI-X interrupts enabling pattern. > > > > Device drivers will use this interface to obtain maximum number > > of MSI-X interrupts the device supports and use that value in > > the following call to pci_enable_msix() interface. > > Hmmm... I probably missed something but why is this necessary? To > discern between -EINVAL and -ENOSPC? If so, does that really matter? pci_msix_table_size() is kind of helper and returns 0 if a device does not have MSI-X table. If we want drivers to use it we need return -EINVAL for MSI-X incapable/disabled devices. Nothing about -ENOSPC. > tejun -- Regards, Alexander Gordeev agordeev at redhat.com