[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130903141824.GD10522@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 10:18:24 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] AHCI: Conserve interrupts with
pci_enable_msi_block_part() interface
On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 11:00:28AM +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> + if (hpriv->flags & AHCI_HFLAG_NO_MSI)
> + goto intx;
> +
> + rc = pci_enable_msi_block_part(pdev, n_ports, AHCI_MAX_PORTS);
> + if (!rc)
> + return AHCI_MAX_PORTS;
> + if (rc < 0)
> + goto intx;
> +
> + maxvec = rc;
> + rc = pci_enable_msi_block_part(pdev, n_ports, maxvec);
> + if (!rc)
> + return maxvec;
> + if (rc < 0)
> + goto intx;
Why is the above fallback necessary? The only other number which
makes sense is roundup_pow_of_two(n_ports), right? What does the
above fallback logic buy us?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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