On 04/21/2010 04:10 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 04/21/2010 04:04 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >> On Wednesday 21 April 2010 04:33:28 pm H. Peter Anvin wrote: >>> Do you have opinions on patches 1-2 of the series? >>> >>> I'm getting concerned about how the size of the patchset has grown, and >>> we're past -rc5 already... but it is a regression so we can't just defer >>> it to .35. >> >> Part 1: the essential part of this seems to be the trim_bios_range() >> change, and that part is not too big. In v4, Yinghai also removed >> probe_roms_32.c. That sounds like the right thing to do, but I'd >> rather have that in separate patch so it doesn't obfuscate the other >> change, and I don't know whether it *has* to be done for .34; maybe >> it could be deferred. > > I would agree with that. then use -v3 please -v4: also don't trim [0xa0000, 0x100000] for mrst. > >> Part 2: IMHO, we're putting way too much crap in kernel/resource.c. >> A name like "reserve_region_with_split_check_child()" is a pretty >> good clue that we've lost our way somewhere. But that's mostly a >> cosmetic thing, and the end result does seem to be something that >> fixes the current regression. > > It's not just a good clue we have lost our way, it's also completely > impossible for anyone but Yinghai to divine what the intended semantics > are supposed to be. This *greatly* concerns me, especially given > previous track record. I don't know. insert_resource_expand_to_fit() is added by Linus. And at least he knew old reserve_region_with_split() > > Even the checkin comment is almost unparsable, which makes it very > likely that someone is going to trip up on some of this in the future. > I really would like to get a better description. > > The use of a string match in: > > + if (check_child && !conflict->child && strstr(conflict->name, > "PCI Bus")) > ^^^^^^^^^ > > ... screams "wrong! ugly! bad!" in my opinion. I utterly fail to see > how that could be acceptable under any circumstances. I thought that > had been flagged earlier in the conversation, but it is apparently still > there. the string checking is to make sure pci device that is hooked into bus0 directly, but pci bar is falling into 0xa0000 - 0x100000. so can not put "reserved" holder under them. YH -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
