[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200901051153.07860.jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 11:53:07 -0800
From: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86 PCI: Do not use interrupt links for devices using MSI-X
On Monday, January 5, 2009 5:04 am Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl>
> >
> > pcibios_enable_device() and pcibios_disable_device() don't handle
> > IRQs for devices that have MSI enabled and it should tread the
>
> s/tread/treat
>
> > devices with MSI-X enabled in the same way.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/pci/common.c | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> looks good - Jesse, what do you think?
Yeah, seems obviously correct, I'll queue it up.
> Rafael, i'm curious is this in response to some regression/bug? Did some
> box or driver get confused by us enabling/disabling the GSI? Some IRQ
> flood perhaps?
>
> btw., there's a small observation:
> > + if (!dev->msi_enabled && !dev->msix_enabled)
>
> maybe a "pci_has_gsi_irq()" wrapper would make these checks cleaner and
> would make things more robust, should there be any new IRQ delivery method
> be introduced in the future?
pci_has_msi_irq surely? Otherwise we'll catch pretty much everything? Or did
you mean !pci_has_gsi_irq() here instead?
Thanks,
--
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists