On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 09:18:05AM +0200, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
quoted text
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 10:37:50AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 11:03:46AM +0200, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 04:59:01PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > 
> > > > -#define MAX_NUM_OF_PHBS		8 /* how many PHBs in total? */
> > > > -#define MAX_NUM_CHASSIS		8 /* max number of chassis */
> > > > -/* MAX_PHB_BUS_NUM is the maximal possible dev->bus->number */
> > > > -#define MAX_PHB_BUS_NUM		(MAX_NUM_OF_PHBS * MAX_NUM_CHASSIS * 2)
> > > > +/*
> > > > +   The maximum PHB bus number.
> > > > +   x3950M2 (rare): 8 chassis, 48 PHBs per chassis = 384
> > > > +   x3950M2: 4 chassis, 48 PHBs per chassis        = 192
> > > > +   x3950 (PCIE): 8 chassis, 32 PHBs per chassis   = 256
> > > > +   x3950 (PCIX): 8 chassis, 16 PHBs per chassis   = 128
> > > > +*/
> > > > +#define MAX_PHB_BUS_NUM		384
> > > > +
> > > >  #define PHBS_PER_CALGARY	4
> > > 
> > > We'll end up wasting a few bytes on small systems, but I don't think
> > > it's enough to matter on these fairly large systems. As far as I'm
> > > concerned, patch is fine.
> > > 
> > > Acked-by: Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@il.ibm.com>
> > 
> > Hmm... has this patch been queued up by anyone for the .34 merge
> > window?
> 
> I don't maintain a separate Calgary patchset anymore, hopefully Ingo
> or one of the other x86 maintainers have picked it up?

Still not in 2.6.34-rc3.  Are there any objections to this patch?  I've not
heard any complaints since my original posting... or did it simply get lost in
the noise?

--D
--
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/