You're correct. The current patch for MSI/MSI-X use the same interrupt handler and same spinlock. For MSI-X, I am adding multiple spinlocks and events ring for MSI-X interrupt to take advanced of MSI-X features. Best Regards, Dong -----Original Message----- From: David Vrabel [mailto:david.vrabel@xxxxxxx] Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 7:25 AM To: Xu, Andiry Cc: sarah.a.sharp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-usb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gregkh@xxxxxxx; Nguyen, Dong; Yang, Libin Subject: Re: [PATCH] xHCI: supporting MSI/MSI-X Andiry Xu wrote: > + for (i = 0; i < xhci->msix_count; i++) { > + fn = (irq_handler_t)xhci_msi_irq; > + ret = request_irq(xhci->msix_entries[i].vector, > + fn, 0, "xhci_hcd", xhci_to_hcd(xhci)); > + if (ret) > + goto disable_msix; > + } Are multiple vectors useful if they all use the same interrupt handler that locks the same spinlock? David -- David Vrabel, Senior Software Engineer, Drivers CSR, Churchill House, Cambridge Business Park, Tel: +44 (0)1223 692562 Cowley Road, Cambridge, CB4 0WZ http://www.csr.com/ Member of the CSR plc group of companies. CSR plc registered in England and Wales, registered number 4187346, registered office Churchill House, Cambridge Business Park, Cowley Road, Cambridge, CB4 0WZ, United Kingdom ��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{���)�� jg��� �����ݢj����G���� ���j:+v���w�m������w�������h�����٥
