linux-kernel - Re: acpi based pci gap calculation

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

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200807161703.11572.jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
Date:	Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:03:11 -0700
From:	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>
To:	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	akataria@...are.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-acpi <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
	TJ <linux@...orld.net>
Subject: Re: acpi based pci gap calculation  - v3

On Wednesday, July 16, 2008 9:33 am Andi Kleen wrote:
> > The only problem there is that linux-next doesn't get nearly the sort of
> > testing coverage we need for this kind of change.
>
> Normally I tend to wait for one -mm release, which seems to be tested
> by a reasonable number of people. If it survives that it is good
> to be tested in Linus' tree.
>
> Just stuffing this in in literally the last minute doesn't seem
> like a good idea.

Well it's hardly last minute given that the merge window only opened a couple 
of days ago...

But beyond that, now that I've thought about it a bit more I'm not even sure 
the patch is really correct (though it works on my test machines).  Shouldn't 
we be looking at _PRS not _CRS?  And ideally we should try to find even more 
space, not less.  This patch made one of my machines lose quite a bit of 
space:

...
Allocating PCI resources starting at c0000000 (gap: bf000000:40f00000)
...
ACPI: PCI resources should start at c0000000 (gap: bf000000:31000000)
...

which is a step backwards.  With that in mind, I reverted the patch before 
asking Linus to pull; I'm hopeful we can do better though.  I'd love to never 
see "resource allocation failed" messages anymore.

Thanks,
Jesse
--
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/