From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: agordeev@redhat.com (Alexander Gordeev) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 14:57:16 +0200 Subject: [PATCH RFC 00/77] Re-design MSI/MSI-X interrupts enablement pattern In-Reply-To: <20131007180111.GC2481@htj.dyndns.org> 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> <20131007180111.GC2481@htj.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <20131009125715.GC32733@dhcp-26-207.brq.redhat.com> On Mon, Oct 07, 2013@02:01:11PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hmmm... yean, the race condition could be an issue as multiple msi > allocation might fail even if the driver can and explicitly handle > multiple allocation if the quota gets reduced inbetween. BTW, should we care about the quota getting increased inbetween? That would entail.. kind of pci_get_msi_limit() :), but IMHO it is not worth it. > tejun -- Regards, Alexander Gordeev agordeev at redhat.com