On Fri, 29 Aug 2008, Yinghai Lu wrote:Except it's still a horrible patch that special-cases all the wrong things (ie random resources that we just happen to know that ACPI etc cares about). There's no way to know in general if ACPI might care deeply where some random resource is (say, graphics memory) and it might be done with a BAR. So that's why I think the approach stinks. Well, we should probably just remove the IORESOURCE_BUSY part. Again, that comes from the fact that the e820 resources used to _override_ everything - they were inserted first, and nothing else was _ever_ allowed to allocate in that region. But if we're changing that, then the whole IORESOURCE_BUSY part doesn't make sense. In fact, in general, IORESOURCE_BUSY doesn't much make sense any more in general, because it was actually more of an ISA-timeframe locking model saying "you can't touch this region". But if the whole point is that we now try to allow PCI device BAR's and the e820 maps to co-exist, then the whole - and only - reason for IORESOURCE_BUSY for them goes away.. Linus --
| Steven Rostedt | Re: Major regression on hackbench with SLUB |
| Jeremy Fitzhardinge | [PATCH 02 of 36] x86: add memory clobber to save/loadsegment |
| Tarkan Erimer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Paul Jackson | Re: cpuset-remove-sched-domain-hooks-from-cpusets |
git: | |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Arjan van de Ven | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 03/37] dccp: List management for new feature negotiation |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH iproute2] Re: HTB accuracy for high speed |
