From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 22:02:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 22:02:47 -0400 Received: from pizda.ninka.net ([216.101.162.242]:43747 "EHLO pizda.ninka.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 22:02:46 -0400 Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 19:00:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20021004.190053.69975722.davem@redhat.com> To: torvalds@transmeta.com Cc: viro@math.psu.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: oops in bk pull (oct 03) From: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: References: <20021004.181311.31550114.davem@redhat.com> X-FalunGong: Information control. X-Mailer: Mew version 2.1 on Emacs 21.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Linus Torvalds Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 18:41:25 -0700 (PDT) On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, David S. Miller wrote: > Another theory is that some device just dislikes being given > a 0 in one of it's base registers, but somehow ~0 is ok :-) I think that is the real issue. We're mapping something - probably a host bridge - at address 0, and then accessing RAM (which is also is mapped at PCI address 0) and the host bridge is unhappy. We're current blindly putting ~0 in there, how can that be any better? :-) So excluding the change is probably the right thing to do - it's just fundamentally buggy to blindly put a base register at zero. And putting ~0 there is ok? >>From what you're saying, that whole routine is fundamentally broken.