From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 03:09:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 03:09:44 -0400 Received: from dell-paw-3.cambridge.redhat.com ([195.224.55.237]:25587 "EHLO passion.cambridge.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 03:09:43 -0400 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.4 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 From: David Woodhouse X-Accept-Language: en_GB In-Reply-To: References: To: "Scott Murray" Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: RFC: PCI hotplug resource reservation Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 08:13:22 +0100 Message-ID: <27462.1028790802@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org scottm@somanetworks.com said: > I think the implications are pretty strong that programming bridges > with conflicting ranges will result in undefined behaviour. Even if > it did work, doing so also has the potential to open us up to new > classes of bridge hardware bugs that no one has seen before. OK. That buggers that idea then :( -- dwmw2