On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 15:18 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:23:50 +0200 > Oleg Gawriloff <barzog@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 15.01.2010 1:01, Andrew Morton __________: > > > > > Oleg, please send that lpfc patch via emailed reply-to-all to this email. > > > Include a brief description for the changelog and a Signed-off-by: as > > > per Documentation/SubmittingPatches, thanks. > > Signed-off-by version available at > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=126342842601776&w=2 > > > > From: George Kadianakis <desnacked {bomb} gmail {point} com> > > > > A Gentoo bug report [1] showed that as of 2.6.31 lpfc only uses INTx > > interrupts. > > This patch restores lpfc's ability to support MSI-X/MSI interrupts that the > > "Addition of SLI4 Interface - Base Support" patch [2] broke. > > It reestablishes MSI-X as the default interrupt method and in case MSI-X > > is not > > supported lpfc_sli{4,}_enable_intr fallbacks to MSI and then to INTx. > > > > [1]: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=296319 > > [2]: commit da0436e915a5c17ee79e72c1bf978a4ebb1cbf4d > > > > Signed-off-by: George Kadianakis <desnacked {cat} gmail {dog} com> > > --- > > drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_attr.c | 6 +++--- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_attr.c b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_attr.c > > index e1a30a1..936ecaf 100644 > > --- a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_attr.c > > +++ b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_attr.c > > @@ -2890,12 +2890,12 @@ LPFC_ATTR_RW(poll_tmo, 10, 1, 255, > > /* > > # lpfc_use_msi: Use MSI (Message Signaled Interrupts) in systems that > > # support this feature > > -# 0 = MSI disabled (default) > > +# 0 = MSI disabled > > # 1 = MSI enabled > > -# 2 = MSI-X enabled > > +# 2 = MSI-X enabled (default) > > # Value range is [0,2]. Default value is 0. > > */ > > -LPFC_ATTR_R(use_msi, 0, 0, 2, "Use Message Signaled Interrupts (1) or " > > +LPFC_ATTR_R(use_msi, 2, 0, 2, "Use Message Signaled Interrupts (1) or " > > "MSI-X (2), if possible"); > > > > This is committed to the scsi tree without a cc:stable, so it won't get > backported into 2.6.32.x and might not make it into 2.6.33 either. > > Was that all intentional? Yes. The commit contains an essay from James Smart as a sidebar explaining the logic, but the gist is that there were instabilities in the previous kernel that caused MSI failures with the lpfc cards so disabling MSI was deliberate. James -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
