Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753250Ab3JIM4M (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Oct 2013 08:56:12 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:62518 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751380Ab3JIM4J (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Oct 2013 08:56:09 -0400 Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 14:57:16 +0200 From: Alexander Gordeev To: Tejun Heo Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Ben Hutchings , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Bjorn Helgaas , Ralf Baechle , Michael Ellerman , Martin Schwidefsky , Ingo Molnar , Dan Williams , Andy King , Jon Mason , Matt Porter , 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 , "VMware, Inc." , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/77] Re-design MSI/MSI-X interrupts enablement pattern Message-ID: <20131009125715.GC32733@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> <20131007180111.GC2481@htj.dyndns.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131007180111.GC2481@htj.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 709 Lines: 20 On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 02:01:11PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hmmm... yean, the race condition could be an issue as multiple msi > allocation might fail even if the driver can and explicitly handle > multiple allocation if the quota gets reduced inbetween. BTW, should we care about the quota getting increased inbetween? That would entail.. kind of pci_get_msi_limit() :), but IMHO it is not worth it. > tejun -- Regards, Alexander Gordeev agordeev@redhat.com -- 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/