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: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:07:58 -0700 From: "Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@...il.com> To: "Gary Hade" <garyhade@...ibm.com> Cc: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>, "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...e.de>, "kernel list" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/pci: add pci=skip_isa_align command lines. On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Gary Hade <garyhade@...ibm.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 09:45:57AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel.send@...il.com> wrote: > > > > > [PATCH] x86/pci: add pci=skip_isa_align command lines. > > > > > > so we don't align the io port start address for pci cards. > > > > > > also move out dmi check out acpi.c, because it has nothing to do with > > > acpi. it could spare some calling when we have several peer root > > > buses. > > > > i like this feature, and i've applied your patch to x86.git for testing, > > but i'd like to hear what the ACPI and PCI guys think about this. > > > > Also, we should try as hard as possible to make it a blacklist instead > > of a whitelist? It would be cool to support more PCI cards/devices on > > all new(-ish) systems by default and if we didnt have to maintain the > > DMI whitelist for eternity. (a whitelist will always be incomplete and > > will lag behind reality) > > Ingo, This is a great idea. I was the guy that added the whitelist > and ISA alignment avoidance code but have also been concerned about > the headache of keeping whitelist current in mainline and Distro > releases as new systems are introduced. When I made the change I > assumed (appearently incorrectly) that there were way too many > existing systems requiring the alignment to even consider the > blacklist approach. Do you have any suggestions on how to identify > systems to include in the blacklist? ...or would we just boldly make > non-alignment the default, provide an empty blacklist, and let > breakage identify those systems that need to be blacklisted? at least to use blacklist with x86_64 YH -- 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