On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 12:18 PM Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 11:12 AM Jerry Snitselaar <jsnit...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > Since the field in the device table entry format expects it to be n > > where there are 2^n entries in the table I guess it should be: > > > > #define DTE_IRQ_TABLE_LEN 9 > > #define MAX_IRQS_PER_TABLE (1 << DTE_IRQ_TABLE_LEN) > > No, that "DTE_IRQ_TABLE_LEN" is not the size shift - it's the size > shift value in that DTE field, which is shifted up by 1. > > That's why the current code does that > > #define DTE_IRQ_TABLE_LEN (9ULL << 1) > > there.. > > Which was why I suggested that new #define that is the *actual* shift > value, and then the DTE thing and the MAX_IRQS_PER_TABLE values would > depend on that. > > Linus >
Yes, when I read it my head was translating it as setting them both to 512 and then I forgot that it gets shifted over 1. Which considering I was the once who noticed the original problem of it still being 8 was a nice brain fart. This should be fixed like you suggest.
