Re: Updated MSI Patches

[Jeff Garzik]

Nakajima, Jun wrote:
> The issue with do_MSI() approach is that it's very similar to do_IRQ(),
> and we may have maintenance issues there. However, if we make a common

I agree


> do_MSI() code, that might be worth it, and I would expect much fewer
> architecture-dependent issues there, compared to do_IRQ (the common
> do_IRQ() hasn't happened yet as far as I know).

However, we have maintenance issues in this area as well :)

If you look at each architecture's implementation of do_IRQ, you can see 
each implementation is strikingly similar... except for some subtle 
differences.  So there are arguments both ways:  creating a common 
do_IRQ may add maintenance value...  but also create corner-case 
problems for the arch maintainers.

So, IMO, do_IRQ is one special case where copying code may be preferred 
over common code.

And I also feel the same way about do_MSI().  However, I have not looked 
at non-ia32 MSI implementations to know what sort of issues exist.

	Jeff



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