From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: hpa@zytor.com (H. Peter Anvin) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:28:27 -0700 Subject: [PATCH RFC 00/77] Re-design MSI/MSI-X interrupts enablement pattern In-Reply-To: <20131010101704.GC11874@dhcp-26-207.brq.redhat.com> References: <5254D397.9030307@zytor.com> <1381292648.645.259.camel@pasglop> <20131010101704.GC11874@dhcp-26-207.brq.redhat.com> Message-ID: <5256D5AB.4050105@zytor.com> On 10/10/2013 03:17 AM, Alexander Gordeev wrote: > On Wed, Oct 09, 2013@03:24:08PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > 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. > Is there a reason for the wrappers, as opposed to just specifying either 1 or nvec as the minimum? -hpa