From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/77] Re-design MSI/MSI-X interrupts enablement
 pattern
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 11:46:06 -0400
Message-ID: <20131009154606.GC22495@htj.dyndns.org>
References: <cover.1380703262.git.agordeev@redhat.com>
 <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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@redhat.com>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>,
	Michael Ellerman <michael@ellerman.id.au>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
	Andy King <acking@vmware.com>, Jon Mason <jon.mason@intel.com>,
	Matt Porter <mporter@kernel.crashing.org>,
	linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux390@de.ibm.com,
	linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
	linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, iss_storagedev@hp.com,
	linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
	linux-driver@qlogic.com,
	Solarflare linux maintainers <linux-net-drivers@solarflare.com>,
	"VMwar
To: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@solarflare.com>
Return-path: <linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1381178881.1536.28.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.level5networks.com>
Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 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