Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 21/01/2010 10:19, "Weidong Han" <weidong.han@intel.com> wrote:
>
>   
>>> Sorry this is typo.
>>> I mean:
>>> So, I think RMRR that has no-existent device is "invalid"
>>> and whole RMRR should be ignored.
>>>   
>>>       
>> looks reasonable.
>>
>> Keir, I Acks Noboru's rmrr patch. Or do you want us to merge them to one
>> patch?
>>     
>
> Merge them up, re-send with both sign-off and acked-by all in one email.
>
>  Thanks,
>  Keir
>
>   
Sorry, I disagree with Noboru after thinking it again. If the RMRR has 
both no-existent device and also has existent devices in its scope, we 
should not ignore it because the existent devices under its scope will 
be impacted without the RMRR. so I suggest to print a warning instead of 
ignore it. Attached a patch for it.

Signed-off-by: Weidong Han <weidong.han@intel.com>