From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754114AbYGJIIJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jul 2008 04:08:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751106AbYGJIHx (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jul 2008 04:07:53 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:55760 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750980AbYGJIHw (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jul 2008 04:07:52 -0400 Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 01:01:49 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Yong Wang Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Intel IOMMU: RMRRs do not necessarily have to be present on all VT-d capable platforms Message-Id: <20080710010149.a73d779c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20080701091354.GA12969@ywang-dev> References: <20080701091354.GA12969@ywang-dev> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.7 (GTK+ 2.12.1; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 05:13:54 -0400 Yong Wang wrote: > RMRRs do not necessarily have to be present on all VT-d capable platforms. > The printk is just informational and does not need to be followed by an > error return. > > Signed-off-by: Yong Y Wang > --- > dmar.c | 4 +--- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/dmar.c b/drivers/pci/dmar.c > index f941f60..8bf86ae 100644 > --- a/drivers/pci/dmar.c > +++ b/drivers/pci/dmar.c > @@ -317,10 +317,8 @@ int __init dmar_table_init(void) > return -ENODEV; > } > > - if (list_empty(&dmar_rmrr_units)) { > + if (list_empty(&dmar_rmrr_units)) > printk(KERN_INFO PREFIX "No RMRR found\n"); > - return -ENODEV; > - } > > return 0; > } >>From your description I am unable to work out how important this fix is. Is it needed in 2.6.25.x? In 2.6.26? In 2.6.27? There's no way for me to know :(