From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F56ADE0C2 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2007 17:09:10 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/16] Ops based MSI Implementation From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: "Eric W. Biederman" In-Reply-To: References: <20070128.155155.51857352.davem@davemloft.net> <1170032301.26655.140.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20070128.171309.11624572.davem@davemloft.net> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 17:08:46 +1100 Message-Id: <1170050926.26655.236.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: greg@kroah.com, kyle@parisc-linux.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, brice@myri.com, shaohua.li@intel.com, linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, David Miller List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > My problem is that I have been asking about RTAS for six months > since before OLS. Slowly the information has trickled in. My first > impression is boy is that weird. My second impression after getting > the full details was huh? That is ridiculous, simply because they > don't need to do a Michael's been posting early versions of his work ages ago, as Jake did with some of his earlier stuff based on hooking at the toplevel, and I'm pretty sure that at least for Michael's stuff, you've always been CCed. Anyway, doesn't matter now. In my latest reply to David, I've basically summarized what I think are our 2 options to move forward based on your patches, I would appreciate your input on that. Ben.