Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756778Ab3JGUsL (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Oct 2013 16:48:11 -0400 Received: from webmail.solarflare.com ([12.187.104.25]:64644 "EHLO webmail.solarflare.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752598Ab3JGUsI (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Oct 2013 16:48:08 -0400 Message-ID: <1381178881.1536.28.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.level5networks.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/77] Re-design MSI/MSI-X interrupts enablement pattern From: Ben Hutchings To: Alexander Gordeev CC: Benjamin Herrenschmidt , , Bjorn Helgaas , "Ralf Baechle" , Michael Ellerman , Martin Schwidefsky , Ingo Molnar , Tejun Heo , Dan Williams , Andy King , Jon Mason , Matt Porter , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Solarflare linux maintainers , "VMware, Inc." , Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 21:48:01 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20131006071027.GA29143@dhcp-26-207.brq.redhat.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> Organization: Solarflare Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.6.4 (3.6.4-3.fc18) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.17.20.137] X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-10.0.0.1412-7.000.1014-20202.000 X-TM-AS-Result: No--30.044700-0.000000-31 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: Yes X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1336 Lines: 31 On Sun, 2013-10-06 at 09:10 +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote: > On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 05:19:46PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > On Sun, 2013-10-06 at 08:02 +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote: > > > In fact, in the current design to address the quota race decently the > > > drivers would have to protect the *loop* to prevent the quota change > > > between a pci_enable_msix() returned a positive number and the the next > > > call to pci_enable_msix() with that number. Is it doable? > > > > I am not advocating for the current design, simply saying that your > > proposal doesn't address this issue while Ben's does. > > 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. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job. They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/