[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <878rk8jro4.ffs@tglx>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2022 14:52:43 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>, Jon Mason <jdmason@...zu.us>,
Allen Hubbe <allenbh@...il.com>,
"Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwi@...utronix.de>,
Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 02/33] genirq/msi: Provide struct msi_parent_ops
On Thu, Nov 17 2022 at 16:58, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16 2022 at 14:57, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
>> And perhaps it would be a bit clearer to put the parent_domain inside
>> the msi_domain_info, which is basically acting as an argument bundle
>> for a future allocation call?
>
> Maybe. Let me try.
No. That's redundant storage because the domain creation stores the
parent domain in irqdomain::parent which is what the hierarchy code
uses. That code does not know about msi_domain_info.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists