Return-Path: Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/14] irq: add support for allocating (and affinitizing) sets of IRQs To: Keith Busch Cc: linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner References: <20181029163738.10172-12-axboe@kernel.dk> <20181030142601.GA18906@localhost.localdomain> <20181030144527.GB18906@localhost.localdomain> <46dbcbcd-799f-9970-a68f-de7e96b1a6bb@kernel.dk> <20181030150840.GC18906@localhost.localdomain> <20181030160242.GD18906@localhost.localdomain> <27c1017a-9560-80cb-038d-f64727a162c3@kernel.dk> <535480f3-9087-b4ae-e7c8-cfe3c2d1e2c9@kernel.dk> <20181030172234.GF18906@localhost.localdomain> From: Jens Axboe Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 11:33:51 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20181030172234.GF18906@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 List-ID: On 10/30/18 11:22 AM, Keith Busch wrote: > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 11:09:04AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: >> Pretty trivial, below. This also keeps the queue mapping calculations >> more clean, as we don't have to do one after we're done allocating >> IRQs. > > Yep, this addresses my concern. It less efficient than PCI since PCI > can usually jump straight to a valid vector count in a single iteration > where this only subtracts by 1. I really can't be bothered to care for > optimizing that, so this works for me! :) It definitely is less efficient than just getting the count that we can support, but it's at probe time so I could not really be bothered either. Can I add your reviewed-by? -- Jens Axboe