From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] PCI/MSI: Factor out pci_get_msi_cap() interface
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 16:06:08 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130905200608.GA3846@htj.dyndns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130905185440.GA13175@dhcp-26-207.brq.redhat.com>
Hello, Alexander.
On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 08:54:40PM +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> I assume reasons for having this type of interface at the moment of
> taking design decision about pci_enable_msi_block() still hold true.
> I do not know what those reasons were, but I think the fact multiple
> MSIs are rarely used and MSI-X exists does not invalidate them now.
Well, it does change the underlying assumptions to make trade-offs
against. If something is widely used, expected to continue to expand,
additional complexity to achieve better outcome is likely to be more
justifiable. Nothing exists in vacuum. That said, I'm not even sure
whether we want this sort of interface even if multiple MSI were still
the hot thing.
> I did consider the other argument - since pci_enable_msi_block_part()
> is explicitly provided with a value of MME the caller will not be
> satisfied with any other value and hence a repeated call with a lesser
> MME does not make sense for the caller. Therefore we could just fail
> in case the architecture returned a positive value. Same result, but
> different reasoning.
Just making the whole thing including arch methods to return 0/-errno
would probably be a lot cleaner.
> At the moment I still prefer pci_enable_msi_block_part() to be similar
> to pci_enable_msi_block(). I do agree the fallback logic is error-prone,
> but I would not dare to scrap it all right away.
Yeah, of course, pci_enable_msi_block() would need to be updated to
match too. I understand this is going a bit off the original scope of
the patchset but I can't help but cringing at the interface and the
resulting "fallback" logic it ends up creating in its users. Bjorn,
what do you think?
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-09-05 20:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 73+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-09-05 12:51 [PATCH v2 0/6] AHCI: Conserve interrupts with pci_enable_msi_block_part() interface Alexander Gordeev
2013-09-05 12:52 ` [PATCH v2 1/6] PCI/MSI: Introduce " Alexander Gordeev
2013-09-05 12:52 ` [PATCH v2 2/6] PCI/MSI: Factor out pci_get_msi_cap() interface Alexander Gordeev
2013-09-05 13:09 ` Tejun Heo
2013-09-05 15:03 ` Alexander Gordeev
2013-09-05 15:04 ` Tejun Heo
2013-09-05 15:40 ` Alexander Gordeev
2013-09-05 15:44 ` Tejun Heo
2013-09-05 18:54 ` Alexander Gordeev
2013-09-05 20:06 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2013-09-06 16:01 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2013-09-06 16:06 ` Tejun Heo
2013-09-06 23:32 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2013-09-09 15:20 ` Alexander Gordeev
2013-09-09 15:22 ` [PATCH 1/9] PCI/MSI/PPC: Fix wrong RTAS error code reporting Alexander Gordeev
2013-09-09 15:22 ` [PATCH 2/9] PCI/MSI/PPC: Make return values only 0/-errno when MSIs allocated Alexander Gordeev
2013-09-09 15:24 ` [PATCH 3/9] PCI/MSI/x86: " Alexander Gordeev
2013-09-09 15:24 ` [PATCH 4/9] PCI/MSI/MIPS: " Alexander Gordeev
2013-09-09 15:25 ` [PATCH 2/9] PCI/MSI/PPC: Make return values only 0/-errno when MSIs allocated[PATCH 5/9] PCI/MSI/s390: " Alexander Gordeev
2013-09-09 15:38 ` scrap this one Alexander Gordeev
2013-09-09 15:26 ` [PATCH 5/9] PCI/MSI/s390: Make return values only 0/-errno when MSIs allocated Alexander Gordeev
2013-09-10 12:42 ` Sergei Shtylyov
2013-09-10 13:09 ` Alexander Gordeev
2013-09-09 15:27 ` [PATCH 6/9] PCI/MSI/s390: Remove superfluous check of MSI type Alexander Gordeev
2013-09-09 15:28 ` [PATCH 7/9] PCI/MSI/s390: Make return values only 0/-errno when MSIs allocated Alexander Gordeev
2013-09-09 15:29 ` [PATCH 8/9] PCI/MSI: Fix return value when populate_msi_sysfs() failed Alexander Gordeev
2013-09-09 15:29 ` [PATCH 9/9] PCI/MSI: Make return values only 0/-errno when MSIs allocated Alexander Gordeev
2013-09-09 15:37 ` [PATCH v2 2/6] PCI/MSI: Factor out pci_get_msi_cap() interface Tejun Heo
2013-09-09 15:45 ` Alexander Gordeev
2013-09-16 10:22 ` Alexander Gordeev
2013-09-17 14:30 ` Michael Ellerman
2013-09-18 9:48 ` Alexander Gordeev
2013-09-18 14:22 ` Tejun Heo
2013-09-18 16:50 ` Alexander Gordeev
2013-09-20 8:24 ` Alexander Gordeev
2013-09-20 12:27 ` Tejun Heo
2013-09-25 18:02 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2013-09-25 20:58 ` Alexander Gordeev
2013-09-25 21:00 ` Tejun Heo
2013-09-26 7:46 ` Alexander Gordeev
2013-09-26 8:58 ` David Laight
2013-09-26 10:45 ` Alexander Gordeev
2013-09-26 11:34 ` David Laight
2013-09-26 12:13 ` Alexander Gordeev
2013-09-26 13:11 ` Tejun Heo
2013-09-26 14:39 ` Alexander Gordeev
2013-09-26 14:42 ` Tejun Heo
2013-10-01 7:19 ` Michael Ellerman
2013-09-20 12:26 ` Tejun Heo
2013-10-01 7:26 ` Michael Ellerman
2013-10-01 7:35 ` Michael Ellerman
2013-10-01 11:55 ` Tejun Heo
2013-10-02 2:33 ` Michael Ellerman
2013-10-02 3:23 ` Tejun Heo
2013-09-26 12:32 ` Mark Lord
2013-09-26 13:03 ` Alexander Gordeev
2013-10-02 2:46 ` Mark Lord
2013-10-02 7:26 ` Alexander Gordeev
2013-12-18 18:26 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2013-10-01 7:51 ` Michael Ellerman
2013-10-01 10:35 ` Alexander Gordeev
2013-10-02 2:43 ` Michael Ellerman
2013-10-02 7:10 ` Alexander Gordeev
2013-09-06 13:17 ` Alexander Gordeev
2013-09-05 12:53 ` [PATCH v2 3/6] MSI/x86: Support pci_enable_msi_block_part() interface Alexander Gordeev
2013-09-05 12:53 ` [PATCH v2 4/6] AHCI: Conserve interrupts with " Alexander Gordeev
2013-09-05 13:10 ` Tejun Heo
2013-09-05 15:23 ` Alexander Gordeev
2013-09-05 12:54 ` [PATCH v2 5/6] AHCI: Check MRSM bit when multiple MSIs enabled Alexander Gordeev
2013-09-05 13:11 ` Tejun Heo
2013-09-05 15:25 ` Alexander Gordeev
2013-09-05 14:32 ` Sergei Shtylyov
2013-09-05 12:54 ` [PATCH v2 6/6] PCI/MSI: Get rid of pci_enable_msi_block_auto() interface Alexander Gordeev
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130905200608.GA3846@htj.dyndns.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=JBeulich@suse.com \
--cc=agordeev@redhat.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=linux-ide@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).