Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753114Ab0LLNVr (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Dec 2010 08:21:47 -0500 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:47082 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752557Ab0LLNVn (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Dec 2010 08:21:43 -0500 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Jesse Barnes Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] resources: add arch hook for preventing allocation in reserved areas Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 14:20:56 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.37-rc5+; KDE/4.4.4; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Linus Torvalds , 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 References: <20101208213606.13026.47657.stgit@bob.kio> <20101211201615.79186de7@jbarnes-desktop> In-Reply-To: <20101211201615.79186de7@jbarnes-desktop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201012121420.57217.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1916 Lines: 42 On Sunday, December 12, 2010, Jesse Barnes wrote: > 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. OK, so I guess the best thing we can do for 2.6.37 is to revert 1af3c2e (x86: allocate space within a region top-down), right? Rafael -- 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/