On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 10:45:48AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 11:14:40AM -0600, Grant Grundler wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 03:41:09PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > I disagree it should stay as it is. Basically you are trading
> > > a bit less complexity in Infiniband now for a lot of code everywhere.
> >
> > It's not just infiniband. It's tg3 and e1000 as well.
>
> Yes, it's every device that wants to enable MSI. So far, only one
No, it is every device that wants to use MSI-X.
Also see the proposals from Jeff/Stefan et.al. for simpler interfaces
for this. No need to actually make it messy if we have nice helpers.
> driver that wants to enable MSI, has to handle broken devices. And odds
> are, that driver just isn't tested properly yet :)
>
> So I stand by my decision now, it's just too complex to enable MSI for
I think you decision is wrong here.
> everyone and expect drivers to disable it properly if they need to. The
> logic is just convoluted (see the patch for details.) As proof, I got
> it completly wrong the first time, and I'm still not sure that I got it
> correct after working on this for a while. :)
>
> In the end, the pci_enable/pci_disable interface is the way to go.
No, it isnt.
-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]
