From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: bhutchings@solarflare.com (Ben Hutchings) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 21:48:01 +0100 Subject: [PATCH RFC 00/77] Re-design MSI/MSI-X interrupts enablement pattern In-Reply-To: <20131006071027.GA29143@dhcp-26-207.brq.redhat.com> References: <1380840585.3419.50.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.level5networks.com> <20131004082920.GA4536@dhcp-26-207.brq.redhat.com> <1380922156.3214.49.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.level5networks.com> <20131005142054.GA11270@dhcp-26-207.brq.redhat.com> <1381009586.645.141.camel@pasglop> <20131006060243.GB28142@dhcp-26-207.brq.redhat.com> <1381040386.645.143.camel@pasglop> <20131006071027.GA29143@dhcp-26-207.brq.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1381178881.1536.28.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.level5networks.com> On Sun, 2013-10-06@09:10 +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote: > On Sun, Oct 06, 2013@05:19:46PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > On Sun, 2013-10-06@08:02 +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote: > > > In fact, in the current design to address the quota race decently the > > > drivers would have to protect the *loop* to prevent the quota change > > > between a pci_enable_msix() returned a positive number and the the next > > > call to pci_enable_msix() with that number. Is it doable? > > > > I am not advocating for the current design, simply saying that your > > proposal doesn't address this issue while Ben's does. > > There is one major flaw in min-max approach - the generic MSI layer > will have to take decisions on exact number of MSIs to request, not > device drivers. [... No, the min-max functions should be implemented using the same loop that drivers are expected to use now. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job. They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.