[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH RFC 07/77] PCI/MSI: Re-design MSI/MSI-X interrupts enablement

To: Alexander Gordeev <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 07/77] PCI/MSI: Re-design MSI/MSI-X interrupts enablement pattern
From: Tejun Heo <>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 11:54:13 -0400
Cc:, Bjorn Helgaas <>, Ralf Baechle <>, Michael Ellerman <>, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <>, Martin Schwidefsky <>, Ingo Molnar <>, Dan Williams <>, Andy King <>, Jon Mason <>, Matt Porter <>,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Solarflare linux maintainers <>, "VMware, Inc." <>,
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=T22H+7lmUP5oJvF7/XTtR6fuPRz5lofGA97Y08EWwPA=; b=fFWAF9qkB3KZASHjjB2pKZnyjqGHRH3QDLpHct2aHUM4Fr1x+9oL5l0cZ/j9H0kA7h qWJ1xBllBB/+9ZDOID4ix9OZAt7btrpfVZaUwOt5RBRGDqxpLNQaoBRUchK2EQ35WsAR I3Bu520wnk9fDxK426iLlX12UJdH6l/tcVNIRWyvnUn2PWM9xGl5vDgV95B2q50pPo2p piQ+lXnLNsVvrTpbaY8UxRkGQF6EMdVETLQmSz4mtxqnbZ2VJBkno/kb8EGseY1W49pD 9UreV+h6TciTMzDqza8D4H5VmBdLKOYaE+rokyEmEKEBHNji3pQVHrZCddfzgSXE3MCm goTw==
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <>
List-help: <>
List-id: linux-mips <>
List-owner: <>
List-post: <>
List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0
List-subscribe: <>
List-unsubscribe: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <> <>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Hello, Alexander.

On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 09:48:26AM +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> > If there are many which duplicate the above pattern, it'd probably be
> > worthwhile to provide a helper?  It's usually a good idea to reduce
> > the amount of boilerplate code in drivers.
> I wanted to limit discussion in v1 to as little changes as possible.
> I 'planned' those helper(s) for a separate effort if/when the most
> important change is accepted and soaked a bit.

The thing is doing it this way generates more churns and noises.  Once
the simpler ones live behind a wrapper which can be built on the
existing interface, we can have both reduced cost and more latitude on
the complex cases.

> > If we do things this way, it breaks all drivers using this interface
> > until they're converted, right?
> Right. And the rest of the series does it.

Which breaks bisection which we shouldn't do.

> > Also, it probably isn't the best idea
> > to flip the behavior like this as this can go completely unnoticed (no
> > compiler warning or anything, the same function just behaves
> > differently).  Maybe it'd be a better idea to introduce a simpler
> > interface that most can be converted to?
> Well, an *other* interface is a good idea. What do you mean with the
> simpler here?

I'm still talking about a simpler wrapper for common cases, which is
the important part anyway.



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>