From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261176AbVFHNbV (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Jun 2005 09:31:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261202AbVFHNbV (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Jun 2005 09:31:21 -0400 Received: from mail.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:55757 "EHLO mx1.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261176AbVFHNbT (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Jun 2005 09:31:19 -0400 Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 15:31:09 +0200 From: Andi Kleen To: Greg KH Cc: Jeff Garzik , "David S. Miller" , tom.l.nguyen@intel.com, roland@topspin.com, linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ak@suse.de Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] PCI: remove access to pci_[enable|disable]_msi() for drivers - take 2 Message-ID: <20050608133109.GQ23831@wotan.suse.de> References: <20050607002045.GA12849@suse.de> <20050607202129.GB18039@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050607202129.GB18039@kroah.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 01:21:29PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > Hm, here's an updated patch that should have fixed the errors I had in > my previous one where I wasn't disabling MSI for the devices that did > not want it enabled (note, my patch skips the hotplug and pcie driver > for now, those would have to be fixed if this patch goes on.) > > However, now that I've messed around with the MSI-X logic in the IB > driver, I'm thinking that this whole thing is just pointless, and I > should just drop it and we should stick with the current way of enabling > MSI only if the driver wants it. If you look at the logic in the mthca > driver you'll see what I mean. The problem is then that we have to go through all drivers and add the ugly logic there. Isnt it better to do it by default? > Oh, and in looking at the drivers/pci/msi.c file, it could use some > cleanups to make it smaller and a bit less complex. I've also seen some > complaints that it is very arch specific (x86 based). But as no other > arches seem to want to support MSI, I don't really see any need to split > it up. Any comments about this? I think it would be better to have a clean split. -Andi