Re: Linux 2.6.27-rc5: System boot regression caused by commit a2bd7274b47124d2fc4dfdb8c0591f545ba749dd

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...>
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...>, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...>, Tejun Heo <htejun@...>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>, David Witbrodt <dawitbro@...>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...>, Kernel Testers <kernel-testers@...>
Date: Friday, August 29, 2008 - 10:33 pm

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008, Yinghai Lu wrote:

So the problem there was that traditionally, e820_reserve_resource()
expected to be the first one to populate any resources. That's changed,
and that's why it now needs to use "insert_resource()" rather than
"request_resource()".

> so the lapic entry in the resource tree will prevent some entry in

So this didn't work _originally_ either?

> solutions will be

Yeah, I don't like it. The quirk I was talking about was the one about
apparetly bogus MMIO address:

>> pci 0000:00:00.0: BAR has MMCONFIG at e0000000-ffffffff

which you said came from another BAR. That isn't the HPET.

> 2. or the one you are reverted... check_bar_with_valid. (hpet, ioapic,

Yeah, no, that's horrid. I'm happy it's reverted.

> 3. or sticky resource... , but could have particallly overlapping

And no, this doesn't work.

> 4. or don't register reserved entries in e820.. Eric, Nacked.

Yeah, no, we do want reserved entries from e820 to show up to at least
stop late _dynamic_ allocations from taking over.

> 5. or you sugges, regiser some reserved entries later...., and have

Yes. And I do think this is a workable model.

Linus
--

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Linux 2.6.27-rc5, Linus Torvalds, (Thu Aug 28, 7:26 pm)
Re: Linux 2.6.27-rc5, J.A. , (Sun Aug 31, 7:27 pm)
Re: Linux 2.6.27-rc5, Rafael J. Wysocki, (Fri Aug 29, 1:13 pm)
Re: Linux 2.6.27-rc5: System boot regression caused by commi..., Rafael J. Wysocki, (Fri Aug 29, 3:57 pm)
Re: Linux 2.6.27-rc5: System boot regression caused by commi..., Rafael J. Wysocki, (Fri Aug 29, 6:47 pm)
Re: Linux 2.6.27-rc5: System boot regression caused by commi..., Rafael J. Wysocki, (Fri Aug 29, 6:30 pm)
Re: Linux 2.6.27-rc5: System boot regression caused by commi..., Rafael J. Wysocki, (Sat Aug 30, 3:20 pm)
Re: Linux 2.6.27-rc5: System boot regression caused by commi..., Rafael J. Wysocki, (Sat Aug 30, 3:29 pm)
Re: Linux 2.6.27-rc5: System boot regression caused by commi..., Rafael J. Wysocki, (Sat Aug 30, 4:46 pm)
Re: Linux 2.6.27-rc5: System boot regression caused by commi..., Rafael J. Wysocki, (Sat Aug 30, 5:34 pm)
Re: Linux 2.6.27-rc5: System boot regression caused by commi..., Rafael J. Wysocki, (Sun Aug 31, 8:27 am)
Re: Linux 2.6.27-rc5: System boot regression caused by commi..., Rafael J. Wysocki, (Fri Aug 29, 6:31 pm)
Re: Linux 2.6.27-rc5: System boot regression caused by commi..., Rafael J. Wysocki, (Sat Aug 30, 9:32 am)
Re: Linux 2.6.27-rc5: System boot regression caused by commi..., Rafael J. Wysocki, (Sat Aug 30, 1:14 pm)
Re: Linux 2.6.27-rc5: System boot regression caused by commi..., Rafael J. Wysocki, (Sat Aug 30, 3:51 pm)
Re: Linux 2.6.27-rc5: System boot regression caused by commi..., Linus Torvalds, (Fri Aug 29, 10:33 pm)
Re: Linux 2.6.27-rc5: System boot regression caused by commi..., Rafael J. Wysocki, (Fri Aug 29, 6:32 pm)
cpu time oddity (was Re: Linux 2.6.27-rc5), Alistair John Strachan, (Fri Aug 29, 11:42 am)
Re: cpu time oddity (was Re: Linux 2.6.27-rc5), Alistair John Strachan, (Fri Aug 29, 11:56 am)