From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758352AbZHQXaN (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Aug 2009 19:30:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752336AbZHQXaM (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Aug 2009 19:30:12 -0400 Received: from sous-sol.org ([216.99.217.87]:51649 "EHLO sequoia.sous-sol.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751214AbZHQXaL (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Aug 2009 19:30:11 -0400 Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:29:37 -0700 From: Chris Wright To: Faidon Liambotis Cc: Chris Wright , iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Woodhouse , Suresh Siddha Subject: Re: [regression, bisected] fails to boot on Dell Optiplex 760 with VT-d enabled Message-ID: <20090817232937.GK24885@sequoia.sous-sol.org> References: <4A89CB52.4030008@debian.org> <20090817231156.GJ24885@sequoia.sous-sol.org> <4A89E63E.407@debian.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A89E63E.407@debian.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Faidon Liambotis (paravoid@debian.org) wrote: > As an observation, David's patch is checking if *both* iommu->cap and > iommu->ecap are -1, while yours checks for either. You're also checking > for ver. Obviously, I have no idea which of the two is more correct. David's looks fine to me, and as a bonus it's already queued up ;-) None of those registers should return -1. thanks, -chris