[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1902151053520.1646@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 10:54:32 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
Sumit Saxena <sumit.saxena@...adcom.com>,
Kashyap Desai <kashyap.desai@...adcom.com>,
Shivasharan Srikanteshwara
<shivasharan.srikanteshwara@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [patch V5 4/8] nvme-pci: Simplify interrupt allocation
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > + */
> > > + if (nrirqs == 1)
> > > + nr_read_queues = 0;
> > > + else if (write_queues >= nrirqs)
> > > + nr_read_queues = nrirqs - 1;
> >
> > ... while this seem to ensure that we carve out one write queue out of
> > the irq set. It looks like a departure from the original code, which
> > would set nr_read_queues to 1 in that particular case.
>
> Bah. right you are.
That needs to be:
nr_read_queues = 1;
obviously.
/me blushes.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists