Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755671AbYGNCM0 (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Jul 2008 22:12:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754038AbYGNCMR (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Jul 2008 22:12:17 -0400 Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.231]:52646 "EHLO out01.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753685AbYGNCMQ (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Jul 2008 22:12:16 -0400 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: David Miller Cc: benh@kernel.crashing.org, suresh.b.siddha@intel.com, matthew@wil.cx, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, grundler@parisc-linux.org, mingo@elte.hu, tglx@linutronix.de, jgarzik@pobox.com, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org, rdunlap@xenotime.net, mtk.manpages@gmail.com References: <1215989044.7549.219.camel@pasglop> <1215994659.7549.227.camel@pasglop> <20080713.174457.82768245.davem@davemloft.net> Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 19:03:52 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20080713.174457.82768245.davem@davemloft.net> (David Miller's message of "Sun, 13 Jul 2008 17:44:57 -0700 (PDT)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 24.130.11.59 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa04 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: ;David Miller X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Report: * -1.8 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG * -1.1 BAYES_05 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 1 to 5% * [score: 0.0154] * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa04 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] * 0.0 XM_SPF_Neutral SPF-Neutral Subject: Re: Multiple MSI, take 3 X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 (built Thu, 03 Mar 2005 10:44:12 +0100) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mgr1.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 910 Lines: 24 David Miller writes: > The x86 system designers decided to implement multi-MSI in an > inconvenient way, it is not a "crap hardware design", merely > some (unfortunately common) implementations of it happen to be. To be clear I was referring to the PCI spec that describes multi-MSI as a crap hardware design. At the very least you are left with the problem of allocating multiple contiguous destinations. Which has the potential to create fragmentation on all supported platforms. Optional mask bits are also nasty. My honest opinion is that the should have deprecated multi-msi after the introduction of the msi-x specification. Eric -- 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/