On 12/11/2013 02:55 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote: > On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Joseph Salisbury > <joseph.salisbury@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 12/09/2013 03:10 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote: >>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> That doesn't answer my question at all. >>>> >>>> I understand that this change makes it so Joseph doesn't have to use >>>> "pci=realloc=off". But why should auto-reallocation be limited to >>>> buses that have resources above 4GB? That doesn't make any sense. >>>> >>>> We should fix the reallocation code so it can deal with this case. If >>>> there's not enough space for everything, obviously we have to leave >>>> something unassigned. A ROM BAR is a good candidate for leaving >>>> unassigned, because most of the time we can get along without it. >>> Yes, that is ideal and not that simple. >>> but that would be hard to backport to old kernels. >>> >>> BTW, Joseph, can you try >>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/yinghai/linux-yinghai.git >>> for-pci-3.14 >>> with pci=realloc=on >>> >>> on that system? >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Yinghai >> I noticed there was some back and forth on this thread. Do you still >> want me to test this version, Yinghai? > Yes, if that works, we would not need to put the patch in upstream for limiting > realloc auto scope. > > Thanks > > Yinghai Hi Yinghai, Sorry for the delay. The bug reporter was finally able to test your patch. He reports that this version of the patch does in fact fix the bug. See comment #72 here: http://pad.lv/1245938 Thanks again for all your help! Joe -- 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
