Re: [PATCH 2/3] Refactor msi/msix restore code Part2

[Zhenzhong Duan]

On 2013-08-01 23:16, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 04:41:32PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:08 PM, Zhenzhong Duan
> > <zhenzhong.duan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > xen_initdom_restore_msi_irqs trigger a hypercall to restore addr/data/mask
> > > in dom0. It's better to do the same for default_restore_msi_irqs in baremetal.
> > >
> > > Move restore of mask in default_restore_msi_irqs, this could avoid mask
> > > restored twice in dom0, once in hypercall, the other in kernel.
> > >
> > > Without that, qlcnic driver calling pci_reset_function will lost interrupt
> > > in dom0.
> > >
> > > Tested-by: Sucheta Chakraborty <sucheta.chakraborty@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >   drivers/pci/msi.c |   17 ++++++++++++++---
> > >   1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/msi.c b/drivers/pci/msi.c
> > > index 87223ae..922fb49 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/pci/msi.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/pci/msi.c
> > > @@ -216,6 +216,8 @@ void unmask_msi_irq(struct irq_data *data)
> > >   #ifdef HAVE_DEFAULT_MSI_RESTORE_IRQS
> > >   void default_restore_msi_irqs(struct pci_dev *dev, int irq)
> > >   {
> > > +       int pos;
> > > +       u16 control;
> > >          struct msi_desc *entry;
> > >
> > >          entry = NULL;
> > > @@ -228,8 +230,19 @@ void default_restore_msi_irqs(struct pci_dev *dev, int irq)
> > >                  entry = irq_get_msi_desc(irq);
> > >          }
> > >
> > > -       if (entry)
> > > +       if (entry) {
> > >                  write_msi_msg(irq, &entry->msg);
> > > +               if (dev->msix_enabled) {
> > > +                       msix_mask_irq(entry, entry->masked);
> > > +                       readl(entry->mask_base);
> > > +               } else {
> > > +                       pos = entry->msi_attrib.pos;
> > > +                       pci_read_config_word(dev, pos + PCI_MSI_FLAGS,
> > > +                                            &control);
> > > +                       msi_mask_irq(entry, msi_capable_mask(control),
> > > +                                    entry->masked);
> > > +               }
> > > +       }
> > >   }
> > >   #endif
> > >
> > > @@ -406,7 +419,6 @@ static void __pci_restore_msi_state(struct pci_dev *dev)
> > >          arch_restore_msi_irqs(dev, dev->irq);
> > >
> > >          pci_read_config_word(dev, dev->msi_cap + PCI_MSI_FLAGS, &control);
> > > -       msi_mask_irq(entry, msi_capable_mask(control), entry->masked);
> > >          control &= ~PCI_MSI_FLAGS_QSIZE;
> > >          control |= (entry->msi_attrib.multiple << 4) | PCI_MSI_FLAGS_ENABLE;
> > >          pci_write_config_word(dev, dev->msi_cap + PCI_MSI_FLAGS, control);
> > > @@ -430,7 +442,6 @@ static void __pci_restore_msix_state(struct pci_dev *dev)
> > >
> > >          list_for_each_entry(entry, &dev->msi_list, list) {
> > >                  arch_restore_msi_irqs(dev, entry->irq);
> > > -               msix_mask_irq(entry, entry->masked);
> > >          }
> > >
> > >          control &= ~PCI_MSIX_FLAGS_MASKALL;
> > Konrad, are you OK with this patch now?
> Yes, I wanted to make sure that the existing behavior under baremetal
> was not altered.
>
> And Duan had confirmed it was not  - thought to be on a safe side it
> would be good to confirm this via testing just in case.
I had ever let our customer test on baremetal and it passed.

zduan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/