Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755358AbYCLWVk (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:21:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751858AbYCLWVc (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:21:32 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:53888 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751624AbYCLWVc (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:21:32 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:20:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Greg KH cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Jeff Garzik , LKML , Adrian Bunk , Andrew Morton , Natalie Protasevich , Ingo Molnar , Len Brown , Guennadi Liakhovetski Subject: Re: pcibios_scanned needs to be set in ACPI? (was Re: 2.6.25-rc5: Reported regressions from 2.6.24) In-Reply-To: <20080312212704.GA16836@kroah.com> Message-ID: References: <200803110014.52985.rjw@sisk.pl> <47D6D61F.4050805@garzik.org> <200803112341.42517.rjw@sisk.pl> <20080312203205.GB17187@kroah.com> <20080312212704.GA16836@kroah.com> User-Agent: Alpine 1.00 (LFD 882 2007-12-20) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1382 Lines: 35 On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Greg KH wrote: > > Ok, I think I got it. And it looks like an ACPI bug, but one that we > might have been ignoring for a long time... I still think that the fact that it regressed in that PCI patch means that there is simply something wrong with the patch. At the very least that patch changed behaviour, which was *not* what it was claiming it was doing. I do think it's triggered by the "acpi=noirq" setting: that means that ACPI *won't* disable the legacy scan. Now, admittedly that's a really odd thing to do, and I think it's really strange how pci_acpi_init() does that pcibios_scanned++; in a place where it is not actually scanning the bus, so I do agree that ACPI is doing something really odd here, but the fact is, this code all used to work. Can we please just fix the regression caused by that offending patch? In other words: why did that patch change behaviour AT ALL? Quite frankly, we're too late in the game to say "this exposed some other long-time bug". That *particular* patch needs to be fixed, or reverted. We can look at changing ACPI in 2.6.26, not in -rc6. Linus -- 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/