From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.39-rc3 Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:31:39 -0700 Message-ID: <4DA7054B.1060203@zytor.com> References: <20110412090207.GE19819@8bytes.org> <20110412184433.GF19819@8bytes.org> <20110413064609.GA18777@elte.hu> <20110413172147.GI19819@8bytes.org> <4DA5F62F.3030504@kernel.org> <4DA654D6.2060103@zytor.com> <20110414085624.GC18463@8bytes.org> <20110414091137.GC9248@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110414091137.GC9248@elte.hu> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Joerg Roedel , Yinghai Lu , Alex Deucher , Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel Mailing List , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, Thomas Gleixner , Tejun Heo List-Id: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org On 04/14/2011 02:11 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > I'd strongly suggest we revert back to the old and proven allocation order, as > long as it results in valid layouts. Even if we figure out this particular > GART/GTT assumption there might be a dozen others in other types of hardware. > Yes, but we might also be hiding a real bug which bites other hardware. We have found real and very serious bugs in the kernel this way before -- things where drivers scribble over random memory and allocation order exposed the failure in a predictable way, as opposed to random crashes. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.