From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qe0-f50.google.com ([209.85.128.50]:41540 "EHLO mail-qe0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754279Ab3KTQSM (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Nov 2013 11:18:12 -0500 Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 11:18:08 -0500 From: Tejun Heo To: Alexander Gordeev Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Bjorn Helgaas , Michael Ellerman , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Ben Hutchings , David Laight , Mark Lord , "H. Peter Anvin" , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 09/29] PCI/MSI: Factor out pci_get_msi_cap() interface Message-ID: <20131120161808.GI28946@htj.dyndns.org> References: <85500e7239fcb104df091bbfa873eef8ae654772.1382103786.git.agordeev@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <85500e7239fcb104df091bbfa873eef8ae654772.1382103786.git.agordeev@redhat.com> Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hello, On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 07:12:09PM +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote: > +If this function returns a negative number, it indicates the device is > +not capable of sending MSIs. Wouldn't "errno" better describe the error return rather than "negative number"? > @@ -795,6 +795,21 @@ static int pci_msi_check_device(struct pci_dev *dev, int nvec, int type) > return 0; > } We probably want a function comment here? > +int pci_get_msi_cap(struct pci_dev *dev) > +{ > + int ret; > + u16 msgctl; > + > + if (!dev->msi_cap) > + return -EINVAL; > + > + pci_read_config_word(dev, dev->msi_cap + PCI_MSI_FLAGS, &msgctl); > + ret = 1 << ((msgctl & PCI_MSI_FLAGS_QMASK) >> 1); > + > + return ret; > +} > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(pci_get_msi_cap); Other than that, Reviewed-by: Tejun Heo Thanks. -- tejun