From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jesse Barnes Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] resources: add arch hook for preventing allocation in reserved areas Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 20:16:15 -0800 Message-ID: <20101211201615.79186de7@jbarnes-desktop> 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org 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 List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org 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'r= e > > already in my for-linus tree). =C2=A0Unless Linus has a problem wit= h them > > I'll send them over to him this weekend or Monday. >=20 > See my other email I just sent out. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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 th= e > 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. >=20 > 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. --=20 Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center