Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755961Ab3JIPqO (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Oct 2013 11:46:14 -0400 Received: from mail-qe0-f54.google.com ([209.85.128.54]:37214 "EHLO mail-qe0-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754366Ab3JIPqL (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Oct 2013 11:46:11 -0400 Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 11:46:06 -0400 From: Tejun Heo To: Ben Hutchings Cc: Alexander Gordeev , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , 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: <20131009154606.GC22495@htj.dyndns.org> 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> <1381178881.1536.28.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.level5networks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1381178881.1536.28.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.level5networks.com> 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: 737 Lines: 19 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 -- 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/