From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sunset.davemloft.net (unknown [74.93.104.97]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A06EDE133 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2007 10:37:09 +1100 (EST) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 15:37:07 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <20070128.153707.30184351.davem@davemloft.net> To: ebiederm@xmission.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] MSI portability cleanups From: David Miller In-Reply-To: References: <1170022154.26655.63.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: tony.luck@intel.com, grundler@parisc-linux.org, jeff@garzik.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kyle@parisc-linux.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, brice@myri.com, greg@kroah.com, shaohua.li@intel.com, mingo@elte.hu, linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 16:26:44 -0700 > Yes. In general the mainline linux kernel does not support certain > classes of stupidity. TCP offload engines, firmware drivers for > hardware we care about, a fixed ABI to binary only modules, etc. > It is the responsibility of the OS to setup MSI so we do it, not > the firmware so we do it. I absolutely disagree with you Eric, and I think you're being rediculious. If the hypervisor doesn't control the MSI PCI config space register writes, this allows the device to spam PCI devices which belong to other domains. It's a freakin' reasonable design trade off decision, get over it! :-) Yes it can be done at the hardware level, and many hypervisor based systems do that, but it's not the one-and-only true way to implment inter-domain protection behind a single PCI host controller.