From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tj@kernel.org (Tejun Heo) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 11:46:06 -0400 Subject: [PATCH RFC 00/77] Re-design MSI/MSI-X interrupts enablement pattern In-Reply-To: <1381178881.1536.28.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.level5networks.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> <1381178881.1536.28.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.level5networks.com> Message-ID: <20131009154606.GC22495@htj.dyndns.org> On Mon, Oct 07, 2013@09:48:01PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > 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. Wheee... earlier in the thread I thought you guys were referring to yourselves in the third person and was getting a bit worried. :) -- tejun