> I don't understand your need to try to rush an api change like this in
> so quickly in an area that has a lot of churn and disagreement lately.
> _Especially_ so late in the release cycle, and with no hardware publicly
> availble.
I'm not sure I understood this thread properly, but if I did
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 04:33:41PM -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> >On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 05:28:02PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> >>On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 05:24:23PM -0700, Williams, Mitch A wrote:
> >>>Greg KH wrote:
> Well, I'm sure you can agree that it is _very_ late in the 2.6.21
Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 05:28:02PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 05:24:23PM -0700, Williams, Mitch A wrote:
Greg KH wrote:
Well, I'm sure you can agree that it is _very_ late in the 2.6.21
release cycle to expect to get this in for that kernel. How about
waiting
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 05:28:02PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 05:24:23PM -0700, Williams, Mitch A wrote:
> > Greg KH wrote:
> > >Well, I'm sure you can agree that it is _very_ late in the 2.6.21
> > >release cycle to expect to get this in for that kernel. How about
> > >waitin
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 05:24:23PM -0700, Williams, Mitch A wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> >Well, I'm sure you can agree that it is _very_ late in the 2.6.21
> >release cycle to expect to get this in for that kernel. How about
> >waiting for 2.6.22 and if it's a big deal, getting it into the
> >2.6.21-
Greg KH wrote:
>Well, I'm sure you can agree that it is _very_ late in the 2.6.21
>release cycle to expect to get this in for that kernel. How about
>waiting for 2.6.22 and if it's a big deal, getting it into the
>2.6.21-stable tree if needed.
>
>So far I have not seen any bug reports that this pa
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 02:50:45PM -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> >On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 02:08:19PM -0700, Mitch Williams wrote:
> >>Because both MSI-X interrupt messages and MSI-X table writes are posted,
> >>it's possible for them to cross while in-flight. This results in
> >>inter
Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 02:08:19PM -0700, Mitch Williams wrote:
Because both MSI-X interrupt messages and MSI-X table writes are posted,
it's possible for them to cross while in-flight. This results in
interrupts being received long after the kernel thinks they're disabled,
and i
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 02:08:19PM -0700, Mitch Williams wrote:
> Because both MSI-X interrupt messages and MSI-X table writes are posted,
> it's possible for them to cross while in-flight. This results in
> interrupts being received long after the kernel thinks they're disabled,
> and in interrup
Because both MSI-X interrupt messages and MSI-X table writes are posted,
it's possible for them to cross while in-flight. This results in
interrupts being received long after the kernel thinks they're disabled,
and in interrupts being sent to stale vectors after rebalancing.
This patch performs a
10 matches
Mail list logo
