it seems this patch from Linus get lost ?
-----------------------------------------------------
from Linus
---
drivers/pci/pci.c | 8 ++++++--
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6/drivers/pci/pci.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/pci/pci.c
+++ linux-2.6/drivers/pci/pci.c
@@ -382,8 +382,12 @@ pci_find_parent_resource(const struct pc
continue; /* Wrong type */
if (!((res->flags ^ r->flags) & IORESOURCE_PREFETCH))
return r; /* Exact match */
- if ((res->flags & IORESOURCE_PREFETCH) && !(r->flags & IORESOURCE_PREFETCH))
- best = r; /* Approximating prefetchable by non-prefetchable */
+ /* We can't insert a non-prefetch resource inside a prefetchable parent .. */
+ if (r->flags & IORESOURCE_PREFETCH)
+ continue;
+ /* .. but we can put a prefetchable resource inside a non-prefetchable one */
+ if (!best)
+ best = r;
}
return best;
}
I don't remember seeing it, is it for 2.6.32?
Jesse
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:04:32 -0800
Yinghai Lu <[email protected]> wrote:
> it seems this patch from Linus get lost ?
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> from Linus
>
> ---
> drivers/pci/pci.c | 8 ++++++--
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-2.6/drivers/pci/pci.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/pci/pci.c
> +++ linux-2.6/drivers/pci/pci.c
> @@ -382,8 +382,12 @@ pci_find_parent_resource(const struct pc
> continue; /* Wrong type */
> if (!((res->flags ^ r->flags) & IORESOURCE_PREFETCH))
> return r; /* Exact match */
> - if ((res->flags & IORESOURCE_PREFETCH) && !(r->flags
> & IORESOURCE_PREFETCH))
> - best = r; /* Approximating
> prefetchable by non-prefetchable */
> + /* We can't insert a non-prefetch resource inside a
> prefetchable parent .. */
> + if (r->flags & IORESOURCE_PREFETCH)
> + continue;
> + /* .. but we can put a prefetchable resource inside
> a non-prefetchable one */
> + if (!best)
> + best = r;
> }
> return best;
> }
>
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:23 AM, Jesse Barnes <[email protected]> wrote:
> I don't remember seeing it, is it for 2.6.32?
http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/8/7/352
YH
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:23 AM, Jesse Barnes <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I don't remember seeing it, is it for 2.6.32?
>
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/8/7/352
I'm not entirely sure it needs to go into 32, but it's probably the right
thing to do. Another way of explaining the patch is:
- we currently pick the _first_ exactly matching bus resource entry, but
the _last_ inexactly matching one. Normally first/last shouldn't
matter, but bus resource entries aren't actually all created equal: in
a transparent bus, the last resources will be the parent resources,
which we should generally try to avoid unless we have no choice. So
"first matching" is the thing we should always aim for.
- the patch is a bit bigger than it needs to be, because I simplified the
logic at the same time. It used to be a fairly incomprehensible
if ((res->flags & IORESOURCE_PREFETCH) && !(r->flags & IORESOURCE_PREFETCH))
best = r; /* Approximating prefetchable by non-prefetchable */
and technically, all the patch did was to make that complex choice be
even more complex (it basically added a "&& !best" to say that if we
already gound a non-prefetchable window for the prefetchable resource,
then we won't override an earlier one with that later one: remember
"first matching").
- So instead of that complex one with three separate conditionals in one,
I split it up a bit, and am taking advantage of the fact that we
already handled the exact case, so if 'res->flags' has the PREFETCH
bit, then we already know that 'r->flags' will _not_ have it. So the
simplified code drops the redundant test, and does the new '!best' test
separately. It also uses 'continue' as a way to ignore the bus
resource we know doesn't work (ie a prefetchable bus resource is _not_
acceptable for anything but an exact match), so it turns into:
/* We can't insert a non-prefetch resource inside a prefetchable parent .. */
if (r->flags & IORESOURCE_PREFETCH)
continue;
/* .. but we can put a prefetchable resource inside a non-prefetchable one */
if (!best)
best = r;
instead. With the comments, it's now six lines instead of two, but it's
conceptually simpler, and I _could_ have written it as two lines:
if ((res->flags & IORESOURCE_PREFETCH) && !best)
best = r; /* Approximating prefetchable by non-prefetchable */
but I thought that was too damn subtle.
Feel free to use this long explanation as a commit message if you want,
Linus
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 07:57:47 -0800 (PST)
Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> wrote:
> /* We can't insert a non-prefetch resource inside a
> prefetchable parent .. */ if (r->flags & IORESOURCE_PREFETCH)
> continue;
> /* .. but we can put a prefetchable resource inside a
> non-prefetchable one */ if (!best)
> best = r;
>
> instead. With the comments, it's now six lines instead of two, but
> it's conceptually simpler, and I _could_ have written it as two lines:
>
> if ((res->flags & IORESOURCE_PREFETCH) && !best)
> best = r; /* Approximating prefetchable by
> non-prefetchable */
>
> but I thought that was too damn subtle.
>
> Feel free to use this long explanation as a commit message if you
> want,
Ok, I applied it to my linux-next tree.
Thanks,
Jesse
Jesse Barnes wrote:
> I don't remember seeing it, is it for 2.6.32?
I
http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/8/7/352
not sure. better to make it in pci-next for a while.
in my local tree for a while
YH
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:22:20 -0800
Yinghai Lu <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > I don't remember seeing it, is it for 2.6.32?
> I
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/8/7/352
>
> not sure. better to make it in pci-next for a while.
>
> in my local tree for a while
Wow, that's an old one. Linus said a few times he didn't want that one
to go upstream though.
Linus? You mentioned something about re-working it a bit...
Thanks,
--
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:22:20 -0800
> Yinghai Lu <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > > I don't remember seeing it, is it for 2.6.32?
> > I
> > http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/8/7/352
> >
> > not sure. better to make it in pci-next for a while.
> >
> > in my local tree for a while
>
> Wow, that's an old one. Linus said a few times he didn't want that one
> to go upstream though.
>
> Linus? You mentioned something about re-working it a bit...
Oh, no, I'm perfectly fine with it. I just think it needs testing. Merging
it early in the merge window is fine.
Linus
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 16:24:58 -0800 (PST)
Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:22:20 -0800
> > Yinghai Lu <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > > > I don't remember seeing it, is it for 2.6.32?
> > > I
> > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/8/7/352
> > >
> > > not sure. better to make it in pci-next for a while.
> > >
> > > in my local tree for a while
> >
> > Wow, that's an old one. Linus said a few times he didn't want that
> > one to go upstream though.
> >
> > Linus? You mentioned something about re-working it a bit...
>
> Oh, no, I'm perfectly fine with it. I just think it needs testing.
> Merging it early in the merge window is fine.
Well I guess I didn't miss it and I knew we'd had this conversation
before.
I applied it back in early Nov but forgot to update my "todo"
mailbox. Anyway it'll go in with my first pull request.
Thanks,
--
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center