[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130926130328.GD16774@dhcp-26-207.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:03:29 +0200
From: Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...hat.com>
To: Mark Lord <kernel@...rt.ca>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <michael@...erman.id.au>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
"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>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] PCI/MSI: Factor out pci_get_msi_cap() interface
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 08:32:53AM -0400, Mark Lord wrote:
> On 13-09-18 05:48 AM, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> > The last pattern makes most of sense to me and could be updated with a more
> > clear sequence - a call to (bit modified) pci_msix_table_size() followed
> > by a call to pci_enable_msix(). I think this pattern can effectively
> > supersede the currently recommended "loop" practice.
>
> The loop is still necessary, because there's a race between those two calls,
> so that pci_enable_msix() can still fail due to lack of MSIX slots.
Moreover, the existing loop pattern is racy and could fail just as easily ;)
But (1) that is something drivers should expect and (2) there is basically
nothing to race against - that is probably the reason it has not been a
problem for pSeries. So I think we should not care about this.
--
Regards,
Alexander Gordeev
agordeev@...hat.com
--
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