From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/5] igb_uio: use msi mask functions from
 kernel, little corrections
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2017 13:43:51 +0100
Message-ID: <7f2b5fab-4e5d-aa21-48f8-54675949dc94@intel.com>
References: <1504174949-25656-3-git-send-email-markus.theil@tu-ilmenau.de>
 <1504216020-16067-1-git-send-email-markus.theil@tu-ilmenau.de>
 <1504216020-16067-4-git-send-email-markus.theil@tu-ilmenau.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: stephen@networkplumber.org
To: Markus Theil <markus.theil@tu-ilmenau.de>, dev@dpdk.org
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga05.intel.com (mga05.intel.com [192.55.52.43])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45BD03230
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon,  4 Sep 2017 14:43:54 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <1504216020-16067-4-git-send-email-markus.theil@tu-ilmenau.de>
Content-Language: en-US
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On 8/31/2017 10:46 PM, Markus Theil wrote:
> This patch substitutes the custom MSI/MSI-X mask code and uses
> already existing kernel APIs. Feedback/small corrections to the previous
> patch of this series are also incorporated.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Markus Theil <markus.theil@tu-ilmenau.de>

<...>

> +	if (udev->mode == RTE_INTR_MODE_MSIX || udev->mode == RTE_INTR_MODE_MSI) {
> +#ifdef HAVE_PCI_MSI_MASK_IRQ
> +		if (irq_state == 1)
> +			pci_msi_unmask_irq(irq);
> +		else
> +			pci_msi_mask_irq(irq);

It is an option to keep using mask_msi_irq() without #ifdef, it seems in
newer version of the kernel mask_msi_irq() is already wrapper to the
pci_msi_mask_irq().

Although this may make the code simpler, it can break it if
mask_msi_irq() wrapper removed.

I would go with using mask_msi_irq() directly, but no strong opinion...

<...>