On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Ram Pai <linuxram@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 07:12:38PM +0200, Oliver Hartkopp wrote: >> On 30.06.2011 19:07, Jesse Barnes wrote: >> > On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 19:04:55 +0200 >> > Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> >> On 30.06.2011 10:09, Ram Pai wrote: >> >>> Multiple attempts to dynamically reallocate pci resources have unfortunately >> >>> lead to regressions. Though we continue to fix the regressions and fine tune the >> >>> dynamic-reallocation behavior, we have not reached a acceptable state yet. >> >>> >> >>> This patch provides a interim solution. It disables dynamic-reallocation; by >> >>> default, with the ability to enable it through pci=realloc kernel command line >> >>> parameter. >> >> >> >> What is the advantage of creating an 'interim' kernel parameter instead of >> >> reverting the problematic commit and queue up a proper solution for 3.1 ? >> >> >> >> A kernel parameter needs to be observed, documented and set appropriately. >> >> >> >> I would prefer to have an automatic solution - if not in 3.0 then in 3.1 ... >> > >> > Yeah, we all want an automatic solution, but we still haven't been able >> > to achieve one. My hope is that a parameter will let us keep the code >> > upstream for Ram and others to keep fixing, then we can move to using >> > it by default in some future release. Keeping the code upstream but >> > behind a param should make development easier; at least that's the goal. >> >> What's wrong with the "[PATCH 0/4 v2] PCI: fix cardbus and sriov regressions"? >> To me it looked good - or don't you trust that fix right now? > > I trust the fix :). > > Linus's concern was the wrong alignment, which I have fixed, but yet to resend > the patchset. Will do today. > > However Linus's other concern was "too late for 3.0.0, for such a large patch". > > There is the other concern about "should cardbus resources be treated nice-to-have?" Somewhere along the way, can we get rid of the awkward "nice-to-have" language? I think "optional" conveys most of the intended meaning, perhaps lacking the shade that "we'll allocate them if we can." But the important part is that they are not *required*, and "optional" is a nice antonym for "required." 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
