From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
Viresh Kumar <vireshk@kernel.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
Ion Badulescu <ionut@badula.org>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
Lino Sanfilippo <LinoSanfilippo@gmx.de>,
Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@googlemail.com>,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
Adam Radford <aradford@gmail.com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
James Smart <james.smart@broadcom.com>,
Dick Kennedy <dick.kennedy@broadcom.com>,
Nilesh Javali <njavali@marvell.com>,
GR-QLogic-Storage-Upstream@marvell.com,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org>,
Peter Chen <Peter.Chen@nxp.com>, Felipe Balbi <balbi@kernel.org>,
"linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, dmaengine@vger.kernel.org,
"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
SCSI development list <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-serial@vger.kernel.org,
Linux USB Mailing List <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: Remove pci_try_set_mwi
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2021 14:58:52 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210328195852.GA1088869@bjorn-Precision-5520> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5b59c7b3-6e41-b7cf-b77d-274a88f2c5e1@gmail.com>
On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 12:04:35AM +0100, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> On 26.03.2021 22:26, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > [+cc Randy, Andrew (though I'm sure you have zero interest in this
> > ancient question :))]
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 09:31:21AM +0100, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> >> pci_set_mwi() and pci_try_set_mwi() do exactly the same, just that the
> >> former one is declared as __must_check. However also some callers of
> >> pci_set_mwi() have a comment that it's an optional feature. I don't
> >> think there's much sense in this separation and the use of
> >> __must_check. Therefore remove pci_try_set_mwi() and remove the
> >> __must_check attribute from pci_set_mwi().
> >> I don't expect either function to be used in new code anyway.
> >
> > There's not much I like better than removing things. But some
> > significant thought went into adding pci_try_set_mwi() in the first
> > place, so I need a little more convincing about why it's safe to
> > remove it.
> >
>
> Thanks for the link to the 13 yrs old discussion. Unfortunately it
> doesn't mention any real argument for the __must_check, just:
>
> "And one of the reasons for adding the __must_check annotation is to
> weed out design errors."
> And the very next response in the discussion calls this a "non-argument".
> Plus not mentioning what the other reasons could be.
I think you're referring to Alan's response [1]:
akpm> And we *need* to be excessively anal in the PCI setup code.
akpm> We have metric shitloads of bugs due to problems in that area,
akpm> and the more formality and error handling and error reporting
akpm> we can get in there the better off we will be.
ac> No argument there
So Alan is actually *agreeing* that "we need to be excessively anal in
the PCI setup code," not saying that "weeding out design errors is
not an argument for __must_check."
> Currently we have three ancient drivers that bail out if the call fails.
> Most callers of pci_set_mwi() use the return code only to emit an
> error message, but they proceed normally. Majority of users calls
> pci_try_set_mwi(). And as stated in the commit message I don't expect
> any new usage of pci_set_mwi().
I would love to merge this patch. We just need to clarify the commit
log. Right now the only justification is "I don't think there's much
sense in the __must_check annotation," which may well be true but
could use some support.
If MWI is purely an optimization and there's never a functional
problem if pci_set_mwi() fails, we should say that (and maybe
update any drivers that bail out on failure).
Andrew and Alan both seem to agree that MSI *is* purely advisory:
akpm> pci_set_mwi() is an advisory thing, and on certain platforms
akpm> it might fail to set the cacheline size to the desired number.
akpm> This is not a fatal error and the driver can successfully run
akpm> at a lesser performance level.
ac> Correct.
But even after that, Andrew proposed adding pci_try_set_mwi(). So it
makes sense to really understand what was going on there so we don't
break something in the name of cleaning it up.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ide/20070405211609.5263d627@the-village.bc.nu/
> > The argument should cite the discussion about adding it. I think one
> > of the earliest conversations is here:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ide/20070404213704.224128ec.randy.dunlap@oracle.com/
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-28 19:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-12-09 8:31 [PATCH] PCI: Remove pci_try_set_mwi Heiner Kallweit
2020-12-09 8:40 ` Kalle Valo
2020-12-09 9:03 ` Vinod Koul
2020-12-09 9:20 ` Peter Chen
2020-12-09 9:22 ` Lee Jones
2020-12-09 10:59 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-12-09 11:02 ` Andy Shevchenko
2021-03-26 21:26 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2021-03-26 21:42 ` Andy Shevchenko
2021-03-26 21:55 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2021-03-27 23:04 ` Heiner Kallweit
2021-03-28 19:58 ` Bjorn Helgaas [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210328195852.GA1088869@bjorn-Precision-5520 \
--to=helgaas@kernel.org \
--cc=GR-QLogic-Storage-Upstream@marvell.com \
--cc=LinoSanfilippo@gmx.de \
--cc=Peter.Chen@nxp.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=aradford@gmail.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=balbi@kernel.org \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=chunkeey@googlemail.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dick.kennedy@broadcom.com \
--cc=dmaengine@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=hkallweit1@gmail.com \
--cc=ionut@badula.org \
--cc=james.smart@broadcom.com \
--cc=jejb@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=jirislaby@kernel.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=kvalo@codeaurora.org \
--cc=lee.jones@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-ide@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-serial@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=mcgrof@kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=njavali@marvell.com \
--cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--cc=vireshk@kernel.org \
--cc=vkoul@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).