From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759785Ab1FXQMA (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Jun 2011 12:12:00 -0400 Received: from oproxy8-pub.bluehost.com ([69.89.22.20]:60498 "HELO oproxy8-pub.bluehost.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1754226Ab1FXQL6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Jun 2011 12:11:58 -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=c9RiaKyRQhJdgx0l/izYX1YrCx1IulI/qiy6NO1+pvd9u0C31/YzlVJPhiClO6CrgRKp4XsIc4aJRin2oxi3yt/SllYzHBxJzTuKi4+ze5AX6at+XRH41e75ZkXW9HOQ; Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 09:11:48 -0700 From: Jesse Barnes To: Linus Torvalds Cc: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ram Pai , yinghai@kernel.org Subject: Re: [git pull] PCI fixes Message-ID: <20110624091148.18f8959d@jbarnes-desktop> In-Reply-To: References: <20110623133740.0cdaf204@jbarnes-desktop> <20110624085318.70bde05c@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=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 Fri, 24 Jun 2011 09:07:46 -0700 Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > > > Some discussion was under "PCI: fix cardbus and sriov regressions", > > which includes a patchset as well. Oliver Hartkopp's problem is the one > > that worries me most. The SR-IOV issue is really a BIOS bug and > > unlikely to affect many people anyway (SR-IOV is really a big server > > feature). > > Ouch. That is much bigger than I was hoping for. Especially that > second patch doesn't look like some -rc5 candidate. > > And the fact that Oliver then at the end shows an impossibly aligned > resource shows that it clearly isn't even remotely correct even AFTER > the patches, so that doesn't make me get all warm and fuzzy either. > > So I guess we should just revert again. How about a boot param? We've done similar things for _CRS, and it might give Yinghai and Ram some more flexibility in improving our dynamic resource allocation before enabling it again (if ever). Thanks, -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center