On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 03:16:37PM +0400, Ivan Kokshaysky wrote:
quoted text
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 02:53:13AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 01:55:36AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > Unfortunately if this patch does cause any machine to break, these will
> > > be machines that worked fine up until this point, so that would be a
> > > regression, which is worse.  Life sucks.
> > 
> > If, after a while, you think the change should go into the -stable tree,
> > I have no objection.
> 
> I think it shouldn't - this change will almost certainly cause a regression.
> There is a lot of system devices besides the host bridges that shouldn't be
> disabled during BAR probe, like interrupt controllers, power management
> controllers and so on.

Well, if it's going to cause a regression with machines that currently
work properly, I'll just drop it entirely.  I would much rather not have
a machine work at all with Linux, than break other people's working
machines.

quoted text
> We need a more sophisticated fix - I'm thinking of introducing "probe" field
> in struct pci_dev which can be set by "early" quirk routines.

That might work out well.  Matthew, want to look into this for a
possible way to get your fix into the tree in a way that will not affect
others?

thanks,

greg k-h
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/