Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758358AbZDPRjc (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Apr 2009 13:39:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756625AbZDPRjW (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Apr 2009 13:39:22 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:53997 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756486AbZDPRjV (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Apr 2009 13:39:21 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 19:38:05 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Yinghai Lu , Linus Torvalds , Jesse Barnes , Andrew Morton , Thomas Gleixner , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, yannick.roehlly@free.fr Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/pci: make pci_mem_start to be aligned only -v3 Message-ID: <20090416173805.GC16618@elte.hu> References: <49E4F6D6.6030709@kernel.org> <49E4F71F.10107@kernel.org> <49E52A7A.4070607@kernel.org> <49E52D3F.1090206@kernel.org> <20090416093152.6605612d@hobbes> <20090416165640.GA13927@elte.hu> <49E76864.9060309@kernel.org> <49E76A92.7040203@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49E76A92.7040203@zytor.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1055 Lines: 26 * H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Yinghai Lu wrote: > > > > that need to do done much earlier, and much simple, just need to make that range to be reserved in e820. > > and later e820_setup_gap even don't need to be aligned again. > > > > As long as that doesn't cause the PCI layer to move devices > already assigned in this range out of it. What we want is really > a "weak reserve". On the other hand, that may very well be the > semantics of the existing reserved space, too (I honestly haven't > looked lately.) We have reserve_region_with_split(), which 'wraps around' existing resources non-intrusively by creating split-up resources - preventing their forced reallocation (and preventing their possible breakage - a number of BARs dont like dynamic reallocations at all). Ingo -- 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/