Re: [PATCH 5/15] x86-64: Calgary - abstract how we find the iommu_table for a device

[Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>]

On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 11:33:44AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2007 04:05:54 -0400
> muli@il.ibm.com wrote:
> 
> > From: Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@il.ibm.com>
> > 
> > ... in preparation for doing it differently for CalIOC2.
> > 
> 
> This patch gets
> 
> patching file arch/x86_64/kernel/pci-calgary.c
> Hunk #2 FAILED at 374.
> Hunk #3 FAILED at 403.
> Hunk #4 FAILED at 457.
> Hunk #5 FAILED at 473.
> Hunk #6 FAILED at 489.
> 5 out of 6 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file arch/x86_64/kernel/pci-calgary.c.rej
> Failed to apply x86-64-calgary-abstract-how-we-find-the-iommu_table-for-a-device
> 
> 
> due to git-pciseg.patch.
> 
> So I'll drop git-pciseg until this patch gets to mainline and then
> git-pciseg gets fixed up for it.


Regardless of who it is, people have to stop fighting over ->sysdata.
It's unscalable, regardless of who it is.

Whoever wants to be upstream first should take the basic "x86 sysdata"
bits from jgarzik/misc-2.6.git#pciseg and push those upstream...  which
I note includes Calgary work.

Then NUMA, Calgary and PCI domain stuff merely involve modifying the x86
version of struct pci_sysdata.

I would NAK any [PCI domain | NUMA | Calgary]-only approach to using
->sysdata.  It clearly does NOT belong to any one subsystem, regardless
of who gets upstream first.

Drop git-pciseg?  sure.  Make sysdata Calgary-specific?  NAK.

        Jeff