From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga05.intel.com (mga05.intel.com [192.55.52.43]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45BD03230 for ; Mon, 4 Sep 2017 14:43:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by fmsmga105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 04 Sep 2017 05:43:53 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.41,474,1498546800"; d="scan'208";a="125403620" Received: from fyigit-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.57]) ([10.237.220.57]) by orsmga004.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 04 Sep 2017 05:43:52 -0700 To: Markus Theil , dev@dpdk.org Cc: stephen@networkplumber.org 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> From: Ferruh Yigit Message-ID: <7f2b5fab-4e5d-aa21-48f8-54675949dc94@intel.com> Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2017 13:43:51 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1504216020-16067-4-git-send-email-markus.theil@tu-ilmenau.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 4/5] igb_uio: use msi mask functions from kernel, little corrections X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2017 12:43:55 -0000 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 <...> > + 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... <...>