[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080828201758.GA18437@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:17:58 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] resource/x86: add sticky resource type
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> The fact is, the only reliable way to handle these things has _always_
> been to ask the hardware first. Add the broken resources from ACPI and
> other BIOS tables _later_. If they conflict, it is the ACPI/BIOS
> tables that should be removed.
i fully agree with that principle, i just messed up implementing it.
'Sticky resources' tried to be exactly the kind of 'untrusted, possibly
wrong' resources, which should not prevent existing PCI resources from
being registered - they would at most prevent new PCI resources from
being allocated over them. (the free space is large enough for us to
take the small/untrusted hint from the BIOS where not to allocate to)
I missed the possibility of a sticky resource not being wide enough and
preventing a BAR from being registered, due to partial overlap. That was
not intended.
I guess this whole patchset has to become a lot wider and a lot more
involved.
Ingo
--
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