> -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monja...@6wind.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 5:29 AM > To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zh...@intel.com> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Wu, Jingjing <jingjing...@intel.com> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] eal: fix max number of interrupt request > > 2017-02-13 01:16, Zhang, Qi Z: > > Hi Thomas: > > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monja...@6wind.com] > > > 2017-02-09 14:59, Qi Zhang: > > > > The max number of interrupt request is possible be changed after > > > > rte_intr_callback_register, so in get_max_intr, we need to check > > > > if nessesary to update the max_intr. > > > > > > So you are using rte_intr_enable() to update the max_intr field in > > > the case of VFIO_MSIX. > > > What about MSI, INTX and UIO cases? > > > > My thought is, even without my fix, VFIO_MSIX is already the only case > > that try to modify max_intr field In get_max_intr, we have: > > if (!src->intr_handle.max_intr) > > src->intr_handle.max_intr = 1; > > else if (src->intr_handle.max_intr > > RTE_MAX_RXTX_INTR_VEC_ID) > > src->intr_handle.max_intr > > = RTE_MAX_RXTX_INTR_VEC_ID + > 1; So my > > patch just follow this and fix some problem. > > > > Another option is I can use a local variable that assigned by max_intr with > boundary check, so get_max_intr can be totally removed and max_intr in > intr_source will not be modified. > > > > To me both fix are not perfect, I think the problem is in > rte_intr_callback_register we just save a copy of the pci_dev->intr_handle > but not the address point, so we are missing some mechanism to sync them. > > But since we have tight schedule on the 17.02 release and this issue does > cause some example code can't work, so we need to a fix it first, we may > consider improve the mechanism later. > > > > Thanks > > Qi > > Applied with this title: "vfio: fix maximum number of interrupt for MSI-X" > > Please check how to document this behaviour and make it consistent with > other types of interrupts.
OK, I will check. Thanks Qi
