On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 15:16 -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
quoted text
> Here we go with take 4.  Changes:
> 
>  - Check the requested number of interrupts against the maximum number
>    the device claims to support.  Thanks to Hidetoshi Seto for pointing
>    out this oversight.
>  - Implemented Eric's suggestion of using a single IRQ and storing the
>    data with it.
>  - As a result, don't try to support the mode in the AHCI driver where
>    the excess ports all share the last interrupt.  It could be done, but
>    it would be rather messy and I don't have hardware that supports that
>    mode anyway.
> 
> I'm fairly comfortable with the subchannel notion we're introducing
> here.  It's more flexible than MSI and doesn't impose a penalty on
> architectures which don't implement it.  It makes some things more
> complex, but it makes other things simpler, so I think it's a wash from
> a cleanliness standpoint.

I prefer you initial approach. If those are effectively one interrupt,
you end up with the whole IRQ_INPROGRESS logic going bonkers trying to
prevent them from occuring at the same time and possibly losing some.

I think the masking "issue" is mostly a non-issue as I explained in
other emails.

Cheers,
Ben.


--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/