On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 10:46:32PM -0400, Mark Lord wrote: > >>> The last pattern makes most of sense to me and could be updated with a > >>> more > >>> clear sequence - a call to (bit modified) pci_msix_table_size() followed > >>> by a call to pci_enable_msix(). I think this pattern can effectively > >>> supersede the currently recommended "loop" practice. > >> > >> The loop is still necessary, because there's a race between those two > >> calls, > >> so that pci_enable_msix() can still fail due to lack of MSIX slots. > > > > Moreover, the existing loop pattern is racy and could fail just as easily ;) > > Yes, but it then loops again to correct things.
No. If it failed it should exit the loop. -- Regards, Alexander Gordeev agord...@redhat.com _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
