On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:44:31 -0800

Greg KH  wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 01:32:06PM -0500, Tony Camuso wrote:

quoted text
> > Greg,

> >

> > Have you given Grant's suggestion any further consideration?

> >

> > I'd like to know how the MMCONFIG issues discussed in this thread

> > are going to be handled upstream. I have a patch implemented in

> > RHEL 5.2, but I would rather have the upstream patch implemented,

> > whatever it is.

>

> Well, everyone still doesn't seem to agree on the proper way forward

> here, so for me to just "pick one" isn't very appropriate.

>

> So, can we try again?

I think there's only one fundamental disagreement; and that is:

do we think that things are now totally fixed and no new major issues

will arrive after the "fix yet another mmconfig thing" patches are merged.
If the answer is no, then imho my patch is the right approach; it will limit the damage and doesn't make

the people suffer who don't need extended config space.

If the answer is yet, then my patch is not needed.
This is a judgment call; I'm skeptical, others are more optimistic that after 2 years of messing around

they have finally found the last golden fix.
--

If you want to reach me at my work email, use arjan@linux.intel.com

For development, discussion and tips for power savings,

visit http://www.lesswatts.org

--

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/