On Tuesday, December 14, 2010 01:44:51 pm Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Linus Torvalds > <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > That's a maintainable approach. But it's maintainable ONLY if we then > > don't do other random changes that invalidates all the years of > > testing we've had. > > Btw, looking at all the x86-specific commits that have gone in, I'm > *extremely* unhappy that they apparently stopped honoring that > "resource_alloc_from_bottom" flag that I explicitly asked for. In 20-20 hindsight, I should have made that switch affect more things. I tried to do what you asked; I obviously just didn't do enough, and I am sorry. > So it looks like it's not enough to just set that flag. We have to > actually revert all the commits in this area as broken. > > Which is sad, but since they clearly *are* broken and don't honor the > flag that was there explicitly to avoid this problem and make it easy > to test reverting it, I'm really pissed off. The WHOLE POINT of that > flag was to give people an option to say "use the old resource > allocation order because the new one doesn't work for me". > > So at this point the only question is whether I should just revert the > whole effing lot, or whether there are patches to fix the code to > honor the "allocate from bottom" bit and then just set it by default > again. > > Bjorn? Preferences? Let me identify the set of reversion candidates and the consequences, and then we can figure out whether it's better to retreat or push forward. Bjorn -- 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
