Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757315Ab0APEUP (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jan 2010 23:20:15 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754617Ab0APEUO (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jan 2010 23:20:14 -0500 Received: from g5t0008.atlanta.hp.com ([15.192.0.45]:10024 "EHLO g5t0008.atlanta.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750920Ab0APEUM (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jan 2010 23:20:12 -0500 Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 21:20:10 -0700 From: Alex Chiang To: Yinghai Lu Cc: Jesse Barnes , Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds , Ivan Kokshaysky , Kenji Kaneshige , Bjorn Helgaas , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/11] pci: reject mmio range start from 0 on pci_bridge read Message-ID: <20100116042010.GD22215@ldl.fc.hp.com> References: <1263609721-3921-1-git-send-email-yinghai@kernel.org> <1263609721-3921-4-git-send-email-yinghai@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1263609721-3921-4-git-send-email-yinghai@kernel.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Please change title of patch to: pci: pci_read_bridge_bases rejects MMIO ranges starting at 0 * Yinghai Lu : > that is wrong. > > exposed by that patch that doesn's shrink pci bridge res. Ok, I don't understand how this patch interacts with patch 4/11. Am I correct in understanding that something in 4/11 exposes a problem that 3/11 fixes? I'm just looking for a better explanation of *why* we need this patch here. > -v2: change to "bar reading" to "reg reading" > > Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu > --- > drivers/pci/probe.c | 18 +++++++++++++++--- > 1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/probe.c b/drivers/pci/probe.c > index 11824d7..70b1f74 100644 > --- a/drivers/pci/probe.c > +++ b/drivers/pci/probe.c > @@ -316,13 +316,17 @@ void __devinit pci_read_bridge_bases(struct pci_bus *child) > limit |= (io_limit_hi << 16); > } > > - if (base <= limit) { > + if (base <= limit && base) { This construct (and the similar one below) is a little non-idiomatic. if (base && base <= limit) reads a lot more naturally to me. thanks, /ac -- 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/