From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jesse Barnes Subject: Re: acpi based pci gap calculation - v3 Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:03:11 -0700 Message-ID: <200807161703.11572.jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> References: <1216148382.6135.21.camel@alok-dev1> <200807160906.43632.jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> <487E22EA.8030005@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from outbound-mail-35.bluehost.com ([69.89.18.155]:46403 "HELO outbound-mail-35.bluehost.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1760207AbYGQAD2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:03:28 -0400 In-Reply-To: <487E22EA.8030005@linux.intel.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Andi Kleen Cc: akataria@vmware.com, Ingo Molnar , "Brown, Len" , LKML , linux-acpi , "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" , TJ On Wednesday, July 16, 2008 9:33 am Andi Kleen wrote: > > The only problem there is that linux-next doesn't get nearly the sort of > > testing coverage we need for this kind of change. > > Normally I tend to wait for one -mm release, which seems to be tested > by a reasonable number of people. If it survives that it is good > to be tested in Linus' tree. > > Just stuffing this in in literally the last minute doesn't seem > like a good idea. Well it's hardly last minute given that the merge window only opened a couple of days ago... But beyond that, now that I've thought about it a bit more I'm not even sure the patch is really correct (though it works on my test machines). Shouldn't we be looking at _PRS not _CRS? And ideally we should try to find even more space, not less. This patch made one of my machines lose quite a bit of space: ... Allocating PCI resources starting at c0000000 (gap: bf000000:40f00000) ... ACPI: PCI resources should start at c0000000 (gap: bf000000:31000000) ... which is a step backwards. With that in mind, I reverted the patch before asking Linus to pull; I'm hopeful we can do better though. I'd love to never see "resource allocation failed" messages anymore. Thanks, Jesse