Ben. Multi-MSI is a crap hardware design. Why do you think we have MSI-X? MSI-X as specced is a properly operating irq controller that we don't need kludges to support. Multi-MSI with a full set of kludges almost work but not quite fits the linux irq model. Any hardware designer who choose to implement Multi-MSI instead of MSI-X was not really concerned about having a high performance device. If we can find a way to model the portable capabilities of Multi-MSI cleanly then we can support it, and our drivers and our users and our intermediate layers won't get surprised. So far we have too close fits but neither model really works. Further this is all about driver optimization, so none of this is necessary to have working hardware. Which makes kludges much less appropriate. Modelling Multi-MSI irqs as normal irqs requires a lot of nasty kludges. One of the kludges is allocating a continuous chunk of irq targets, and the resulting fragmentation issues that you get when you start allowing different sized allocations. Overall if Multi-MSI was to become common I think we would really regret it. Eric --
| Artem Bityutskiy | [PATCH 12/44 take 2] [UBI] allocation unit implementation |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 001/196] Chinese: Add the known_regression URI to the HOWTO |
| Jeff Garzik | Re: [RFC] Heads up on sys_fallocate() |
| Christoph Hellwig | pcmcia ioctl removal |
git: | |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| David Miller | Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
