linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] PCI/MSI: Factor out pci_get_msi

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 6 Sep 2013 10:01:38 -0600
From:	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...hat.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
	"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-ide@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] PCI/MSI: Factor out pci_get_msi_cap() interface

On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> 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?

Sorry, I haven't jumped in here yet because I saw your discussion and
was hoping you guys would figure something out without my help.  It
will take me a few hours to look into this and come up with anything
constructive to say.

I do remember disliking the complicated interface of
pci_enable_msi_block() (return negative errno, return positive "we
might be able to do this" values, or zero), but I'll have to do some
more research before I can say much more than that.

Bjorn
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/