From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755814AbcCOOdf (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 15 Mar 2016 10:33:35 -0400
Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr ([192.134.164.83]:36613 "EHLO
	mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934004AbcCOOdb (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 15 Mar 2016 10:33:31 -0400
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,339,1454972400"; 
   d="scan'208";a="207879881"
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 15:33:28 +0100 (CET)
From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
X-X-Sender: jll@hadrien
To: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@redhat.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
Subject: Re: question about pci_enable_msix_range
In-Reply-To: <20160315082941.11216f19@t450s.home>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1603151532100.2531@hadrien>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1603151123340.2531@hadrien> <20160315082941.11216f19@t450s.home>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org



On Tue, 15 Mar 2016, Alex Williamson wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 11:26:50 +0100 (CET)
> Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I was looking at the following code in the file
> > drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_intrs.c:
> >
> >                 ret = pci_enable_msix_range(pdev, vdev->msix, 1, nvec);
> >                 if (ret < nvec) {
> >                         if (ret > 0)
> >                                 pci_disable_msix(pdev);
> >                         kfree(vdev->msix);
> >                         kfree(vdev->ctx);
> >                         return ret;
> >                 }
> >
> > I was wondering what is the point of using a range of 1 .. nvec if there
> > is going to be a failure if the number of allocated irqs is less than
> > nvec?
>
> Hi Julia,
>
> The intention is that on failure we can indicate to the user a value
> that might work.  If we were to call with {nvec, nvec} we'd only get
> back -ENOSPC and the user could only arbitrarily decrease the request
> by some amount and try again.  By using {1, nvec} we can hopefully
> provide a useful next step.  On the other hand, we haven't enabled the
> number of vectors the user requested, so it doesn't seem to make sense
> to leave any enabled.  Thanks,

Ah, OK I see now that the ret will be the value that works in this case,
not a normal failure value.  Thanks for the feedback, which has made
things a lot clearer.

julia