On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 11:07:16AM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hmmm... so, before this, the function would have returned the partial
> number of irqs that arch set up successfully. Is it okay to lose that
> information? If so, can you please elaborate a bit more on why it's
> okay in the
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 11:07:16AM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hmmm... so, before this, the function would have returned the partial
number of irqs that arch set up successfully. Is it okay to lose that
information? If so, can you please elaborate a bit more on why it's
okay in the description?
Hello, Alexander.
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 07:12:06PM +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> @@ -744,23 +744,6 @@ static int msix_capability_init(struct pci_dev *dev,
>
> return 0;
>
> -out_avail:
> - if (ret < 0) {
> - /*
> - * If we had some success, report the
Hello, Alexander.
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 07:12:06PM +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
@@ -744,23 +744,6 @@ static int msix_capability_init(struct pci_dev *dev,
return 0;
-out_avail:
- if (ret 0) {
- /*
- * If we had some success, report the number of
If an architecture failed to allocate requested number of
MSI-Xs we should not mislead device drivers and make them
retry based on how many MSI-Xs were possibly allocated by
the architecture in the process, before the failure. It is
rude for an architecture to leave any leftovers anyway.
If an architecture failed to allocate requested number of
MSI-Xs we should not mislead device drivers and make them
retry based on how many MSI-Xs were possibly allocated by
the architecture in the process, before the failure. It is
rude for an architecture to leave any leftovers anyway.
6 matches
Mail list logo