From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 08:28:24 -0500 From: Tejun Heo To: Alexander Gordeev Cc: Bjorn Helgaas , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Michael Ellerman , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Ben Hutchings , David Laight , Mark Lord , "H. Peter Anvin" , "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 9/9] PCI/MSI: Introduce pci_auto_enable_msi*() family helpers Message-ID: <20131220132824.GA4298@htj.dyndns.org> References: <20131218003002.GA15119@google.com> <20131218132349.GA29552@dhcp-26-207.brq.redhat.com> <20131219134244.GA32238@dhcp-26-207.brq.redhat.com> <20131220090412.GA28367@dhcp-26-207.brq.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20131220090412.GA28367@dhcp-26-207.brq.redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hello, On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 10:04:13AM +0100, Alexander Gordeev wrote: > I can only identify two downsides of the approach above - (a) repeated error > logging in a platform code (i.e. caused by -ENOMEM) and (b) repeated attempts > to enable MSI when the platform already reported a fatal error. I don't think (a) is likely as long as only -ENOSPC is retried, which also solves (b). Thanks. -- tejun