On 2016/4/6 8:48, Gavin Shan wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 09:43:29PM +0800, Yongji Xie wrote:
The resource_alignment will releases memory
resources allocated by firmware so that kernel
can reassign new resources later on. But this
will cause the problem that no resources can be
allocated by kernel if PCI_PROBE_ONLY was set,
e.g. on pSeries platform because PCI_PROBE_ONLY
force kernel to use firmware setup and not to
reassign any resources.
To solve this problem, this patch ignores
resource_alignment if PCI_PROBE_ONLY was set.
Signed-off-by: Yongji Xie <xyjxie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/pci/pci.c | 6 ++++++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.c b/drivers/pci/pci.c
index 602eb42..1db9267 100644
--- a/drivers/pci/pci.c
+++ b/drivers/pci/pci.c
@@ -4607,6 +4607,12 @@ static resource_size_t pci_specified_resource_alignment(struct pci_dev *dev)
spin_lock(&resource_alignment_lock);
p = resource_alignment_param;
while (*p) {
+ if (pci_has_flag(PCI_PROBE_ONLY)) {
+ printk(KERN_ERR "PCI: Ignore resource_alignment parameter: %s with"
+ " PCI_PROBE_ONLY set\n", p);
+ *p = 0;
+ break;
It seems no "*p = 0" isn't required if I don't miss anything. If the check
on flag PCI_PROBE_ONLY is moved before the spin_lock(), it would save a bit
CPU cycles at least. Also, the logic looks more clear.
I used "*p = 0" in case that the warning is called
in every pci_device_add().
And the warning should be called only when users
use resource_alignment parameter. So we test
while(*p) before we call the warning.
Thanks,
Yongji
+ }
count = 0;
if (sscanf(p, "%d%n", &align_order, &count) == 1 &&
p[count] == '@') {
Thanks,
Gavin
--
1.7.9.5
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
