Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc:     "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com>,
        "Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
        "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@intel.com>, Jon Mason <jdmason@kudzu.us>,
        Allen Hubbe <allenbh@gmail.com>,
        "Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwi@linutronix.de>,
        "Chatre, Reinette" <reinette.chatre@intel.com>
Subject: RE: [patch 15/20] genirq/msi: Provide new domain id allocation
 functions
In-Reply-To: <BN9PR11MB527679752FAA7294E33619C98C099@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20221111131813.914374272@linutronix.de>
 <20221111132706.892426212@linutronix.de>
 <BN9PR11MB527679752FAA7294E33619C98C099@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Fri, 18 Nov 2022 13:26:25 +0100
Message-ID: <87iljcjvny.ffs@tglx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Nov 18 2022 at 08:43, Kevin Tian wrote:
>> From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
>> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2022 9:57 PM
>> 
>> @@ -597,7 +598,7 @@ static struct irq_domain *msi_get_device
>>  	if (!domain)
>>  		return NULL;
>> 
>> -	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(irq_domain_is_msi_parent(domain)))
>> +	if (irq_domain_is_msi_parent(domain))
>>  		return NULL;
>
> Is it intended to remove the warning here? If yes, what specific change
> in this patch leads to that removal?

Valid question

>> +	xa_for_each_range(xa, idx, desc, ctrl->first + base, ctrl->last + base) {
>> +		if (!msi_desc_match(desc, MSI_DESC_NOTASSOCIATED))
>> +			continue;
>> +
>> +		/* This should return -ECONFUSED... */
>> +		if (WARN_ON_ONCE(allocated >= ctrl->nirqs))
>> +			return -EINVAL;
>> +
>
> why is "==" an error?

because if you get here _after_ having allocated all interrupts already
then you have more descriptors than what you want to allocate, which
should never happen right?

Thanks,

        tglx