On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 10:55:27PM -0700, Andrew Grover wrote:
> On 6/7/05, Jeff Garzik <[email protected]> wrote:
> > If the driver has to _undo_ something that it did not do, that's pretty
> > lame. Non-orthogonal.
>
> I would think the number of MSI and MSI-X capable devices is going to
> explode over the next five years. I'm not sure it's right to make all
> these device's drivers pay a complexity cost because some of the first
> attempted MSI implementations were buggy.
Exactly. Couldnt agree more.
>
> > Also, it looks like all the PCI MSI drivers need touching for this
> > scheme -- which defeats the original intention. At this rate, the best
> > API is the one we've already got.
>
> For now...but I'm bringing this up again in five years!! *sets egg timer*
I think we should have the right (default MSI) API by default.
If we wait 5 years we end up with lots of mess in the drivers.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
