| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 17:55:15 -0600 From: Grant Grundler <grundler@...isc-linux.org> To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> Cc: abraham.manu@...il.com, rdreier@...co.com, greg@...ah.com, linux-pci@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: PCIE On Sat, May 26, 2007 at 03:49:10PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Manu Abraham <abraham.manu@...il.com> > Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 19:03:12 +0400 > > > i presume then i shouldn't be using IRQF_SHARED, if using MSI. > > That's actually a really good question. > > It is likely architecture dependant whether the PCI controller wires > unique MSI interrupts to shared cpu interrupt lines. MSI (and MSI-X) vectors are required to be exclusive. I submitted that change to pci.txt last year: http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/12/25/2 and ISTR I've posted that bit of the PCI spec a few years ago. But it probably was to linux-pci mailing list only. > I can imagine many systems where the cpu simply doesn't have enough > interrupt pins to uniquely identify every possible MSI interrupt > source. The cpus haven't been using interrupt pins for a long time now. Anything with a Local-xAPIC is already using transactions to signal interrupts even if the OS isn't aware of it. hth, grant - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists