On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 12:22:11PM +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote: > On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 05:20:44PM +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 05:32:05PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > I propose that you rework it that way, and at least find out what > > > (if anything) would break if we do that. Or maybe we just give up > > > some optimization; it would be nice to quantify that, too. > > > > Hi Bjorn, > > > > The series is what it seems a direction to take. > > > > Looks like we need PPC folks to agree on the quota check update > > for pSeries (yes, they do bail out with a positive return value > > from arch_msi_check_device()): > > Hi Ben, > > An initiative to simplify MSI/MSI-X allocation interface is brewing. > It seems pSeries quota thing is an obstacle. If it could be given up > (patch 2/9). How about no? We have a small number of MSIs available, limited by hardware & firmware, if we don't impose a quota then the first device that probes will get most/all of the MSIs and other devices miss out. Anyway I don't see what problem you're trying to solve? I agree the -ve/0/+ve return value pattern is ugly, but it's hardly the end of the world. cheers -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
