On Sun, 2013-10-06 at 09:10 +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote: > On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 05:19:46PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > On Sun, 2013-10-06 at 08:02 +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote: > > > In fact, in the current design to address the quota race decently the > > > drivers would have to protect the *loop* to prevent the quota change > > > between a pci_enable_msix() returned a positive number and the the next > > > call to pci_enable_msix() with that number. Is it doable? > > > > I am not advocating for the current design, simply saying that your > > proposal doesn't address this issue while Ben's does. > > There is one major flaw in min-max approach - the generic MSI layer > will have to take decisions on exact number of MSIs to request, not > device drivers. [... No, the min-max functions should be implemented using the same loop that drivers are expected to use now. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job. They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked. -- 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
