Re: +

Re: +

[Andrew Morton]

On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 15:11:38 -0800 (PST)
Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 8 Jan 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> 
> > On a IA64 system (allows up to 1024 node nodes) this will be wasting 212 
> > kbyte. Some IA64 boxes only have 1 Gigabyte of memory. So we may end up
> > wasting 1/5th of all available memory.
> 
> Crap. This is okay. 212k is 1/5th of 1 Megabyte....
> 
> Acked-by: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>

Well yeah, but if you're sure that this warning is a false-positive
then we could just leave it as-is and whack a comment in there.

Re: +

[Andrew Morton]

On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 15:29:42 -0800 (PST)
Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 8 Jan 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
> > Well yeah, but if you're sure that this warning is a false-positive
> > then we could just leave it as-is and whack a comment in there.
> 
> Yes then lets add a comment.

'k

> Isnt there some way to suppress the warning?

Not afaik.  We have a similar false-positive down in acpi which I haven't
worked out how to suppress.

Re: +

[Andrew Morton]

On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 09:57:15 -0600 Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> wrote:

> On Friday 28 March 2008 05:48:47 pm akpm@linux-foundation.org wrote:
> > 
> > The patch titled
> >      revert gregkh-pci-pci-x86-use-generic-pci_enable_resources
> > has been added to the -mm tree.  Its filename is
> >      revert-gregkh-pci-pci-x86-use-generic-pci_enable_resources.patch
> 
> OK, I'm not sure where we are with this.  Ben listed arches where
> the generic pci_enable_resources() should be safe: x86, alpha, and
> powerpc.  I think we should also include ia64, since I work on that.
> 
> If there's no objection to those arches, how should we move forward?
> Since Andrew put in "revert gregkh-pci" patches rather than just
> dropping things, I assume the original patches are in Greg KH's tree.
> 
> Can we just drop the "revert gregkh" patches for x86, alpha, powerpc,
> and ia64?

So powerpc is OK but ppc might not be?

Re: +

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

On Tue, 2008-04-01 at 09:57 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> 
> Can we just drop the "revert gregkh" patches for x86, alpha, powerpc,
> and ia64?

Considering that the generic is equivalent to what I have today on
powerpc, I'm fine with it.

Cheers,
Ben.

Re: +

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

On Tue, 2008-04-01 at 10:00 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 09:57:15 -0600 Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Friday 28 March 2008 05:48:47 pm akpm@linux-foundation.org wrote:
> > > 
> > > The patch titled
> > >      revert gregkh-pci-pci-x86-use-generic-pci_enable_resources
> > > has been added to the -mm tree.  Its filename is
> > >      revert-gregkh-pci-pci-x86-use-generic-pci_enable_resources.patch
> > 
> > OK, I'm not sure where we are with this.  Ben listed arches where
> > the generic pci_enable_resources() should be safe: x86, alpha, and
> > powerpc.  I think we should also include ia64, since I work on that.
> > 
> > If there's no objection to those arches, how should we move forward?
> > Since Andrew put in "revert gregkh-pci" patches rather than just
> > dropping things, I assume the original patches are in Greg KH's tree.
> > 
> > Can we just drop the "revert gregkh" patches for x86, alpha, powerpc,
> > and ia64?
> 
> So powerpc is OK but ppc might not be?

No, ppc should be fine too.

Cheers,
Ben.

Re: +

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 07:37:56AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 2008-04-01 at 09:57 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > 
> > Can we just drop the "revert gregkh" patches for x86, alpha, powerpc,
> > and ia64?
> 
> Considering that the generic is equivalent to what I have today on
> powerpc, I'm fine with it.

Ok, so what ones should I keep in my tree?

Bjorn, any help?

confused,

greg k-h

Re: +

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 08:43:01AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Tuesday 01 April 2008 11:15:54 pm Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 07:37:56AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Tue, 2008-04-01 at 09:57 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Can we just drop the "revert gregkh" patches for x86, alpha, powerpc,
> > > > and ia64?
> > > 
> > > Considering that the generic is equivalent to what I have today on
> > > powerpc, I'm fine with it.
> > 
> > Ok, so what ones should I keep in my tree?
> > 
> > Bjorn, any help?
> 
> I think we should keep x86, alpha, powerpc, ppc, and ia64.
> 
> Kyle previously acked it for parisc, so maybe he can speak
> up about whether to keep it there.

Ok, I've kept:
	x86
	alpha
	powerpc
	ppc
	parisc
	ia64

and dropped:
	arm
	cris
	frv
	mips
	mn10300
	sh
	sparc64
	v850
	xtensa

from my tree.

If anything further needs to be changed, please let me know.

thanks,

greg k-h