On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 14:24:24 -0600 Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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." I think there's a lot more that could be cleaned up in the re-alloc code; e.g. add_head isn't very descriptive as a way to pass around resources that we're tracking for potential re-allocation. -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center -- 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
