Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 12 Aug 2003 14:48:55 -0400 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: Updated MSI Patches |
| |
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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |