From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: agordeev@redhat.com (Alexander Gordeev) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 12:17:05 +0200 Subject: [PATCH RFC 00/77] Re-design MSI/MSI-X interrupts enablement pattern In-Reply-To: <1381292648.645.259.camel@pasglop> References: <5254D397.9030307@zytor.com> <1381292648.645.259.camel@pasglop> Message-ID: <20131010101704.GC11874@dhcp-26-207.brq.redhat.com> On Wed, Oct 09, 2013@03:24:08PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Tue, 2013-10-08@20:55 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > Why not add a minimum number to pci_enable_msix(), i.e.: > > > > pci_enable_msix(pdev, msix_entries, nvec, minvec) > > > > ... which means "nvec" is the number of interrupts *requested*, and > > "minvec" is the minimum acceptable number (otherwise fail). > > Which is exactly what Ben (the other Ben :-) suggested and that I > supports... Ok, this suggestion sounded in one or another form by several people. What about name it pcim_enable_msix_range() and wrap in couple more helpers to complete an API: int pcim_enable_msix_range(pdev, msix_entries, nvec, minvec); <0 - error code >0 - number of MSIs allocated, where minvec >= result <= nvec int pcim_enable_msix(pdev, msix_entries, nvec); <0 - error code >0 - number of MSIs allocated, where 1 >= result <= nvec int pcim_enable_msix_exact(pdev, msix_entries, nvec); <0 - error code >0 - number of MSIs allocated, where result == nvec The latter's return value seems odd, but I can not help to make it consistent with the first two. (Sorry if you see this message twice - my MUA seems struggle with one of CC). > Cheers, > Ben. > > -- Regards, Alexander Gordeev agordeev at redhat.com