Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752667Ab0LLEQV (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Dec 2010 23:16:21 -0500 Received: from oproxy3-pub.bluehost.com ([69.89.21.8]:48762 "HELO oproxy3-pub.bluehost.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752507Ab0LLEQT convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Dec 2010 23:16:19 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=virtuousgeek.org; h=Received:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:X-Mailer:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Identified-User; b=Zd2I/4lddPzCFYimfJSE59HIXhyWwbij04UeH/P7SX7fAGfuWAuFVbrScoVMcLTxwBKIn8cKv3+eNwxdYiYD0G7fHTXiQLJ4SHOAbBfkvbAmIyxGF9ofndY6oVEkbzp6; Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 20:16:15 -0800 From: Jesse Barnes To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Bjorn Helgaas , Len Brown , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Adam Belay , Matthew Garrett , Dan Williams , rjw@sisk.pl Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] resources: add arch hook for preventing allocation in reserved areas Message-ID: <20101211201615.79186de7@jbarnes-desktop> In-Reply-To: References: <20101208213606.13026.47657.stgit@bob.kio> <20101210123008.7fed582d@jbarnes-desktop> <20101210123609.73c12a23@jbarnes-desktop> <201012101407.24419.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> <20101210173749.7ec3cc28@jbarnes-desktop> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.6 (GTK+ 2.18.9; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Identified-User: {10642:box514.bluehost.com:virtuous:virtuousgeek.org} {sentby:smtp auth 67.174.193.198 authed with jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org} Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1724 Lines: 39 On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 19:34:05 -0800 Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > > > Thanks, I'll add Dan and Rafael's tested-bys to the patches (they're > > already in my for-linus tree).  Unless Linus has a problem with them > > I'll send them over to him this weekend or Monday. > > See my other email I just sent out. > > I really am not going to take some totally new experimental and hacky > major PCI resource management thing this late in the -rc game. No way, > no how. > > If the top-down allocator is causing regressions that cannot be fixed > by _simple_ patches, we're simply going to have to undo it. What's the > advantage of top-down? None. Not if we then need all this crap, which > we could as easily do on top of the bottom-up one WITHOUT any > regressions. > > Why isn't anybody else questioning the whole basic premise here? Questioning the whole premise is fine, but so far we've gone in (or at least think we're going in) a consistent direction: behave like Windows on platforms designed for Windows to avoid bugs that Windows doesn't hit and enable all the same devices Windows allows. But yes, I really don't like the nx6325 patch either; there's obviously something we're still missing that's preventing us from doing the right thing on that platform. Quirking it isn't a good long term answer. -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center -- 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/