From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
To: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@hp.com>, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Adam Belay <abelay@mit.edu>, Matthew Garrett <mjg@redhat.com>,
Dan Williams <dcbw@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] resources: add arch hook for preventing allocation in reserved areas
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 14:20:56 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201012121420.57217.rjw@sisk.pl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101211201615.79186de7@jbarnes-desktop>
On Sunday, December 12, 2010, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 19:34:05 -0800
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> 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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-12-12 13:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-12-08 21:36 [PATCH 1/5] resources: add arch hook for preventing allocation in reserved areas Bjorn Helgaas
2010-12-08 21:36 ` [PATCH 2/5] x86: avoid BIOS area when allocating address space Bjorn Helgaas
2010-12-08 21:36 ` [PATCH 3/5] x86: avoid PNP resources " Bjorn Helgaas
2010-12-08 21:36 ` [PATCH 4/5] PNP: add framework for platform PNP quirks Bjorn Helgaas
2010-12-08 21:36 ` [PATCH 5/5] PNP: HP nx6325 fixup: reserve unreported resources Bjorn Helgaas
2010-12-12 3:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-12-12 5:23 ` Dave Airlie
2010-12-12 6:17 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2010-12-14 20:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-12-14 20:44 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-12-14 23:57 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2010-12-15 6:02 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2010-12-15 6:26 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2010-12-15 7:03 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-12-15 18:18 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2010-12-15 18:27 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-12-15 19:21 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-12-08 21:37 ` [PATCH 0/5] resources: add arch hook for preventing allocation in reserved areas Bjorn Helgaas
2010-12-10 20:30 ` [PATCH 1/5] " Jesse Barnes
2010-12-10 20:36 ` Jesse Barnes
2010-12-10 21:07 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2010-12-11 1:37 ` Jesse Barnes
2010-12-12 3:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-12-12 4:16 ` Jesse Barnes
2010-12-12 13:20 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2010-12-13 5:43 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2010-12-13 13:47 ` Ingo Molnar
2010-12-15 0:09 ` Bjorn Helgaas
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201012121420.57217.rjw@sisk.pl \
--to=rjw@sisk.pl \
--cc=abelay@mit.edu \
--cc=bjorn.helgaas@hp.com \
--cc=dcbw@redhat.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=mjg@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox