From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: agordeev@redhat.com (Alexander Gordeev) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 11:21:09 +0200 Subject: [PATCH RFC 00/77] Re-design MSI/MSI-X interrupts enablement pattern In-Reply-To: References: <1380840585.3419.50.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.level5networks.com> <20131004082920.GA4536@dhcp-26-207.brq.redhat.com> Message-ID: <20131004092108.GB4536@dhcp-26-207.brq.redhat.com> On Fri, Oct 04, 2013@09:31:49AM +0100, David Laight wrote: > > Mmmm.. I am not sure I am getting it. Could you please rephrase? > > One possibility is for drivers than can use a lot of interrupts to > request a minimum number initially and then request the additional > ones much later on. > That would make it less likely that none will be available for > devices/drivers that need them but are initialised later. It sounds as a whole new topic for me. Isn't it? Anyway, what prevents the above from being done with pci_enable_msix(nvec1) - pci_disable_msix() - pci_enable_msix(nvec2) where nvec1 < nvec2? > David -- Regards, Alexander Gordeev agordeev at redhat.com