Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760295AbYGQADn (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:03:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758897AbYGQADb (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:03:31 -0400 Received: from outbound-mail-105.bluehost.com ([69.89.18.5]:59055 "HELO outbound-mail-105.bluehost.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1760211AbYGQAD2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:03:28 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=virtuousgeek.org; h=Received:From:To:Subject:Date:User-Agent:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Disposition:Message-Id:X-Identified-User:DomainKey-Status; b=p+KGMxsk4Z8o9RDflTTsPjPLNeYeKiLrMIKapXE/eYv9tOYCPDLtW3O5YO3uEg9/Z98QMLog1pgAOWcJbu24jBG7X+6wHyDF3CfypFseMM4GoVMMwT4bW0I90Z+CjiuE; From: Jesse Barnes To: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: acpi based pci gap calculation - v3 Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:03:11 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: akataria@vmware.com, Ingo Molnar , "Brown, Len" , LKML , linux-acpi , "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" , TJ References: <1216148382.6135.21.camel@alok-dev1> <200807160906.43632.jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> <487E22EA.8030005@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <487E22EA.8030005@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200807161703.11572.jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> X-Identified-User: {642:box128.bluehost.com:virtuous:virtuousgeek.org} {sentby:smtp auth 75.111.27.49 authed with jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org} DomainKey-Status: no signature Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1478 Lines: 37 On Wednesday, July 16, 2008 9:33 am Andi Kleen wrote: > > The only problem there is that linux-next doesn't get nearly the sort of > > testing coverage we need for this kind of change. > > Normally I tend to wait for one -mm release, which seems to be tested > by a reasonable number of people. If it survives that it is good > to be tested in Linus' tree. > > Just stuffing this in in literally the last minute doesn't seem > like a good idea. Well it's hardly last minute given that the merge window only opened a couple of days ago... But beyond that, now that I've thought about it a bit more I'm not even sure the patch is really correct (though it works on my test machines). Shouldn't we be looking at _PRS not _CRS? And ideally we should try to find even more space, not less. This patch made one of my machines lose quite a bit of space: ... Allocating PCI resources starting at c0000000 (gap: bf000000:40f00000) ... ACPI: PCI resources should start at c0000000 (gap: bf000000:31000000) ... which is a step backwards. With that in mind, I reverted the patch before asking Linus to pull; I'm hopeful we can do better though. I'd love to never see "resource allocation failed" messages anymore. Thanks, Jesse -- 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/