Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 22 Nov 2013 13:44:47 -0500 | From | Tejun Heo <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC v2 12/29] PCI/MSI: Introduce pcim_enable_msi*() family helpers |
| |
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 07:44:30PM +0100, Alexander Gordeev wrote: > On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 12:15:26PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote: > > The use of @nvec and @maxvec is a bit inconsistent. Maybe it'd be > > better to make them uniform? > > With @maxvec I tried to stress an implication there could be values > less than @maxvec. While @nvec is more like an exact number. > Perfectly makes sense to me, but this is personal :)
Oh yeah, I agree but saw a place where @nvec is used for max. Maybe I was confused. Looking again...
+int pcim_enable_msi_range(struct pci_dev *dev, struct msix_entry *entries, + unsigned int nvec, unsigned int minvec) + +This variation on pci_enable_msi_block() call allows a device driver to +request any number of MSIs within specified range minvec to nvec. Whenever +possible device drivers are encouraged to use this function rather than +explicit request loop calling pci_enable_msi_block().
e.g. shouldn't that @nvec be @maxvec?
Thanks.
-- tejun
| |