lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] xen: add support for MSI message groups
On 02/28/2014 01:10 PM, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On 28/02/14 19:00, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>> On 02/28/2014 12:46 PM, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>> On 28/02/14 18:20, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>>> On 02/27/2014 01:45 PM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>>>> On 02/27/2014 01:15 PM, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
>>>>>> Add support for MSI message groups for Xen Dom0 using the
>>>>>> MAP_PIRQ_TYPE_MULTI_MSI pirq map type.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In order to keep track of which pirq is the first one in the group all
>>>>>> pirqs in the MSI group except for the first one have the newly
>>>>>> introduced PIRQ_MSI_GROUP flag set. This prevents calling
>>>>>> PHYSDEVOP_unmap_pirq on them, since the unmap must be done with the
>>>>>> first pirq in the group.
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I was just looking at xen_setup_msi_irqs() (for a different reason) and
>>>> I am no longer sure this patch does anything:
>>>>
>>>> static int xen_setup_msi_irqs(struct pci_dev *dev, int nvec, int type)
>>>> {
>>>> int irq, ret, i;
>>>> struct msi_desc *msidesc;
>>>> int *v;
>>>>
>>>> if (type == PCI_CAP_ID_MSI && nvec > 1)
>>>> return 1;
>>>> ....
>>>>
>>>> Same thing for xen_hvm_setup_msi_irqs().
>>> As said in the commit message this is only for Dom0, so the function
>>> modified is xen_initdom_setup_msi_irqs (were this check is removed).
>> Then what is the reason for these changes:
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/pci/xen.c b/arch/x86/pci/xen.c
>> index 103e702..905956f 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/pci/xen.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/pci/xen.c
>> @@ -178,6 +178,7 @@ static int xen_setup_msi_irqs(struct pci_dev *dev,
>> int nvec, int type)
>> i = 0;
>> list_for_each_entry(msidesc, &dev->msi_list, list) {
>> irq = xen_bind_pirq_msi_to_irq(dev, msidesc, v[i],
>> + (type == PCI_CAP_ID_MSI) ? nvec : 1,
>> (type == PCI_CAP_ID_MSIX) ?
>> "pcifront-msi-x" :
>> "pcifront-msi",
>> @@ -245,6 +246,7 @@ static int xen_hvm_setup_msi_irqs(struct pci_dev
>> *dev, int nvec, int type)
>> "xen: msi already bound to pirq=%d\n", pirq);
>> }
>> irq = xen_bind_pirq_msi_to_irq(dev, msidesc, pirq,
>> + (type == PCI_CAP_ID_MSI) ? nvec : 1,
>> (type == PCI_CAP_ID_MSIX) ?
>> "msi-x" : "msi",
>> DOMID_SELF);
>>
>> Should you simply pass 1?
> Yes, but then if we implement MSI message groups for those cases we will
> need to modify this line again, this way it's already correctly setup.
> If you think it's best to hardcode it to 1, I can change it (I was also
> in doubt about which way was better when modifying those lines).


I think passing 1 explicitly this would be better. If we extend support
for non-dom0 we would have to modify these routines anyway so making
changes in both places simultaneously would make the commit more clear
(IMO).

-boris

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-02-28 20:21    [W:0.082 / U:0.140 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site