[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0808292017440.5010@nehalem.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 20:24:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>
cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
David Witbrodt <dawitbro@...global.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kernel Testers <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.27-rc5: System boot regression caused by commit
a2bd7274b47124d2fc4dfdb8c0591f545ba749dd
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>
> we need to use insert_resource_split_to_fit instead...
>
> otherwise __request_region will not be happy.
Are you really really sure?
Try just removing the IORESOURCE_BUSY. As mentioned, if we expect the PCI
BAR's to work with the e820 resources, then BUSY really is simply not
right any more. Not that I think it should matter either..
The ones that are added _early_ should be IORESOURCE_BUSY (ie the ones
that cover RAM), but the others we now expect to nest with PCI BARs.
But since we add them after we have parsed the BAR's, I don't even see why
the BUSY bit should even matter - we've already added the fixed BARs, and
any newly allocated non-fixed ones shouldn't be allocated in e820 areas
_regardless_ of whether the BUSY bit is set or not.
So pls explain why it matters?
Linus
--
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