[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A4259E2.8090006@lwfinger.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 11:52:50 -0500
From: Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>
To: Gary Hade <garyhade@...ibm.com>
CC: Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Regression with commit f9cde5f in 2.6.30-gitX
Gary Hade wrote:
> I think the resource array needs to be larger. Can you try
> the below patch?
>
> Gary
>
> --- linux-2.6.30-rc8/include/linux/pci.h.ORIG 2009-06-24 09:03:41.000000000 -0700
> +++ linux-2.6.30-rc8/include/linux/pci.h 2009-06-24 09:06:50.000000000 -0700
> @@ -319,7 +319,7 @@ static inline void pci_add_saved_cap(str
> }
>
> #ifndef PCI_BUS_NUM_RESOURCES
> -#define PCI_BUS_NUM_RESOURCES 16
> +#define PCI_BUS_NUM_RESOURCES 20
> #endif
>
> #define PCI_REGION_FLAG_MASK 0x0fU /* These bits of resource flags tell us the PCI region flags */
As noted, I had already tested and posted that increasing
PCI_BUS_NUM_RESOURCES from 16 to 24 "solves" the problem as does
increasing it to 20, but I wonder if that isn't just papering over the
bug, which will reoccur when there is a machine with even a more
complicated PCI bus structure even more complicated than mine. Of
course, increasing it to something as large as 64 might delay the
problem "forever".
Larry
--
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