> 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
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
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
release cycle
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 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
> >
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
>
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
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
>
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
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
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 interrupts
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
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
interrupts being
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 patch
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-stable
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 for
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
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
20 matches
Mail list logo
