On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Jean Delvare <khali@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Lin, > > On Fri, 09 Dec 2011 10:01:49 +0800, Lin Ming wrote: >> On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 21:18 +0800, Luca Tettamanti wrote: >> > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 2:48 AM, Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > > Yes, we should put the call back. >> > >> > Great, are you going to push this patch yourself? >> >> We have investigated this issue more and think that it's better to move >> the resource validation code into ACPICA core. >> >> Here is the new patch. >> >> The major changes include: >> - Remove acpi_os_validate_address/acpi_os_invalidate_address from osl.c. >> They are reimplemented in ACPICA core: >> acpi_ut_add_address_range/acpi_ut_remove_address_range. >> >> - Add new interface for drivers to check resource conflict: >> acpi_check_address_range >> >> Could you help to test it? > > I have no objection for an upstream patch, but the main problem we have > at the moment is with already released kernels. Versions 2.6.39, 3.0 > and 3.1 currently have a regression as the ACPI resource conflict > checks are inefficient, and this allows conflicting drivers to be > loaded together. So you are free to reimplement things differently in > version 3.2 and later, but for these 3 older versions we need the > smallest possible patch, so that it is accepted in stable branches. > > In other words, I would like two patches, one just adding back the code > that was accidentally dropped, and a second one moving things around if > you think it makes sense (and I tend to agree.) That way we can easily > backport only the first patch to kernel versions 2.6.39 to 3.1. Sure. I have send out the patch. [PATCH] ACPICA: Put back the call to acpi_os_validate_address http://marc.info/?l=linux-acpi&m=132257617527119&w=2 Regards, Lin Ming -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
