From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757679Ab1ELTe0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 May 2011 15:34:26 -0400 Received: from oproxy5-pub.bluehost.com ([67.222.39.38]:58388 "HELO oproxy5-pub.bluehost.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1757008Ab1ELTeY convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 May 2011 15:34:24 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=virtuousgeek.org; h=Received:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:X-Mailer:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Identified-User; b=mc37+GMhs9foecrt6u1/Xqx+1l1E8cqWPeYtrHHGhUQrQFfCeru+2Dzb12pUFms+V/zXcpKyR8mBKH6JVBlrxdCa2bdsqnzcqC2lj50NjVVie8ZypidWLEuyzUueqyVP; Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 12:34:12 -0700 From: Jesse Barnes To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Ram Pai , Yinghai Lu , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" , Andrew Morton , Bjorn Helgaas Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2] pci: Check bridge resources after resource allocation. Message-ID: <20110512123412.64e9b4cc@jbarnes-desktop> In-Reply-To: References: <20110506081243.GF16782@ram-laptop> <4DC4586C.6020308@kernel.org> <20110507015240.GN16782@ram-laptop> <4DC4B059.3030502@kernel.org> <4DC64C58.70203@kernel.org> <20110509142014.617e3100@jbarnes-desktop> <4DC9E415.5010402@kernel.org> <20110512180638.GA5012@ram-laptop> <20110512182229.GQ8195@ram-laptop> <20110512113726.123fd85b@jbarnes-desktop> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.6 (GTK+ 2.22.0; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Identified-User: {10642:box514.bluehost.com:virtuous:virtuousgeek.org} {sentby:smtp auth 67.161.37.189 authed with jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org} Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 12 May 2011 12:18:43 -0700 Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > > > Linus, I don't have anything else queued up, so you may as well take > > this one directly if you want it in 2.6.39.  It's a regression fix, but > > resource changes always make me nervous.  Alternately, I could put it > > into 2.6.40 instead, the backport to 2.6.39.x if it survives until > > 2.6.40-rc2 or so... > > Considering the trouble resource allocation always ends up being, I'd > almost prefer that "mark it for stable and put it in the 2.6.40 > queue". > > Afaik this problem hasn't actually hit any "normal" users, has it? So ... Sounds good, thanks. Yeah I don't think it's hit anyone but Yinghai (at least I don't know of any other reports). -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center