Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932119AbWIJNI2 (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Sep 2006 09:08:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932124AbWIJNI2 (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Sep 2006 09:08:28 -0400 Received: from mail.kroah.org ([69.55.234.183]:52181 "EHLO perch.kroah.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932119AbWIJNI0 (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Sep 2006 09:08:26 -0400 Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 06:02:36 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Jeff Garzik Cc: Andrew Morton , Matt Domsch , linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.18-rc5] PCI: sort device lists breadth-first Message-ID: <20060910130236.GB6968@kroah.com> References: <20060908031422.GA4549@lists.us.dell.com> <20060908112035.f7a83983.akpm@osdl.org> <450283D5.1020404@garzik.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <450283D5.1020404@garzik.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1531 Lines: 38 On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 05:05:25AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > I wanted to note what Martin Mares just raised in the thread "State of > the Linux PCI Subsystem for 2.6.18-rc6": > > >Changing the device order in the middle of the 2.6 cycle doesn't sound > >like a sane idea to me. Many people have changed their systems' > >configuration > >to adapt to the 2.6 ordering and this patch would break their setups. > >I have seen many such examples in my vicinity. > > > >I believe that not breaking existing 2.6 setups is much more important > >than keeping compatibility with 2.4 kernels, especially when the problem > >is discovered after more than 2 years after release of the first 2.6. > > > I'm not siding with either Martin or Matt explicitly, just noting that > there are good arguments for both sides. I agree, there are. But I know we explicitly tried to keep 2.4 compability in 2.6 for this very thing. And the fact that almost no one has reported having problems with it, leads me to believe that the sorting order isn't as broken as you might think. Some machines, like the ones that Matt wrote this patch for, need this change, but for all others, it's not really needed. Let's let this sit in -mm for a bit to see if anyone notices any problems. thanks, greg k-h - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/