Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756765AbcDHA4t (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Apr 2016 20:56:49 -0400 Received: from mail-ig0-f194.google.com ([209.85.213.194]:34412 "EHLO mail-ig0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752530AbcDHA4r (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Apr 2016 20:56:47 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1460074573-7481-45-git-send-email-yinghai@kernel.org> References: <1460074573-7481-1-git-send-email-yinghai@kernel.org> <1460074573-7481-45-git-send-email-yinghai@kernel.org> Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 17:56:46 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: v88tI17Wt4M-FUz-xF0D_yhPAkE Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 44/60] PCI: Add alt_size ressource allocation support From: Linus Torvalds To: Yinghai Lu Cc: Bjorn Helgaas , David Miller , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Wei Yang , TJ , Yijing Wang , Khalid Aziz , "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" , Linux Kernel Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 738 Lines: 19 On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 5:15 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote: > On system with several pcie switches, BIOS allocate very tight resources > to the bridge bar, and it is not aligned to min_align as kernel allocation > code. Ok, this came in after I already replied to the other ones. I'm not excited about the whole "alternate aligment". Maybe the kernel should just accept the smaller alignment. If the minimum alignment we use is bigger than necessary, then we're just wrong about it, and perhaps we should just use the smaller alignment that the bios used. So instead of adding this notion of alternate alignment, maybe we should just not be so uptight about our own minimum alignment requirements? Linus