From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030322AbWF0BDz (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jun 2006 21:03:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030329AbWF0BDz (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jun 2006 21:03:55 -0400 Received: from mga06.intel.com ([134.134.136.21]:27453 "EHLO orsmga101.jf.intel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030322AbWF0BDx (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jun 2006 21:03:53 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.06,178,1149490800"; d="scan'208"; a="57050952:sNHT518961142" Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 17:57:20 -0700 From: Rajesh Shah To: Greg KH Cc: Andi Kleen , rajesh.shah@intel.com, akpm@osdl.org, brice@myri.com, 76306.1226@compuserve.com, arjan@linux.intel.com, linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] x86_64 PCI: improve extended config space verification Message-ID: <20060626175720.A31701@unix-os.sc.intel.com> Reply-To: Rajesh Shah References: <20060623200928.036235000@rshah1-sfield.jf.intel.com> <20060623201601.752629000@rshah1-sfield.jf.intel.com> <200606232230.36579.ak@suse.de> <20060623224318.GB31139@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20060623224318.GB31139@suse.de>; from gregkh@suse.de on Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 03:43:18PM -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 03:43:18PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 10:30:36PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > On Friday 23 June 2006 22:09, rajesh.shah@intel.com wrote: > > > Extend the verification for PCI-X/PCI-Express extended config > > > space pointer. This patch checks whether the MCFG address range > > > is listed as a motherboard resource, per the PCI firmware spec. > > > The old check only looked in int 15 e820 memory map, causing > > > several systems to fail the verification and lose extended > > > config space. > > > > By adding so much code to it you volunteered to factor the > > sanity check into a common i386/x86-64 file first. > > I agree :) > > Also, have you looked at the current -git tree? It also modified some > stuff in this area? Look at commit > ead2bfeb7f739d2ad6e09dc1343f0da51feb7f51 for details. > OK, I just reposted after moving the code to a common file. I did check that it compiled against the current -git tree, though the testing was done with -mm2. This did give me back my extended config space, but it would also be nice if it made a difference to the other folks who had reported this problem (CC'd). thanks, Rajesh