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 Another user has confirmed that at test kernel from your branch[0] does resolve the bug. Thanks, Joe [0] git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/yinghai/linux-yinghai.git -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html