On 04/13/2011 04:39 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > - Choice #2: understand exactly _what_ goes wrong, and fix it > analytically (ie by _understanding_ the problem, and being able to > solve it exactly, and in a way you can argue about without having to > resort to "magic happens"). > > Now, the whole analytic approach (aka "computer sciency" approach), > where you can actually think about the problem without having any > pesky "reality" impact the solution is obviously the one we tend to > prefer. Sadly, it's seldom the one we can use in reality when it comes > to things like resource allocation, since we end up starting off with > often buggy approximations of what the actual hardware is all about > (ie broken firmware tables). > > So I'd love to know exactly why one random number works, and why > another one doesn't. But as long as we do _not_ know the "Why" of it, > we will have to revert. > Yes. However, even if we *do* revert (and the time is running short on not reverting) I would like to understand this particular one, simply because I think it may very well be a problem that is manifesting itself in other ways on other systems. The other thing that this has uncovered is that we already have a bunch of complete b*llsh*t magic numbers in this path, some of which are trivially shown to be wrong or at least completely arbitrary, so there are more issues here :( -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf. _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
