From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756627AbYH1USZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:18:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753660AbYH1USR (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:18:17 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:37241 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753315AbYH1USQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:18:16 -0400 Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:17:58 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Yinghai Lu , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jesse Barnes Subject: Re: [PATCH] resource/x86: add sticky resource type Message-ID: <20080828201758.GA18437@elte.hu> References: <1219888583-31577-1-git-send-email-yhlu.kernel@gmail.com> <20080828082119.GN21875@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Linus Torvalds wrote: > The fact is, the only reliable way to handle these things has _always_ > been to ask the hardware first. Add the broken resources from ACPI and > other BIOS tables _later_. If they conflict, it is the ACPI/BIOS > tables that should be removed. i fully agree with that principle, i just messed up implementing it. 'Sticky resources' tried to be exactly the kind of 'untrusted, possibly wrong' resources, which should not prevent existing PCI resources from being registered - they would at most prevent new PCI resources from being allocated over them. (the free space is large enough for us to take the small/untrusted hint from the BIOS where not to allocate to) I missed the possibility of a sticky resource not being wide enough and preventing a BAR from being registered, due to partial overlap. That was not intended. I guess this whole patchset has to become a lot wider and a lot more involved. Ingo