From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757531Ab0LNX5h (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Dec 2010 18:57:37 -0500 Received: from g4t0016.houston.hp.com ([15.201.24.19]:23369 "EHLO g4t0016.houston.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753142Ab0LNX5f (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Dec 2010 18:57:35 -0500 From: Bjorn Helgaas To: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] PNP: HP nx6325 fixup: reserve unreported resources Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 16:57:27 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.2 (Linux/2.6.32-26-generic; KDE/4.4.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Jesse Barnes , Len Brown , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Adam Belay References: <20101208213606.13026.47657.stgit@bob.kio> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201012141657.28244.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday, December 14, 2010 01:44:51 pm Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Linus Torvalds > wrote: > > > > That's a maintainable approach. But it's maintainable ONLY if we then > > don't do other random changes that invalidates all the years of > > testing we've had. > > Btw, looking at all the x86-specific commits that have gone in, I'm > *extremely* unhappy that they apparently stopped honoring that > "resource_alloc_from_bottom" flag that I explicitly asked for. In 20-20 hindsight, I should have made that switch affect more things. I tried to do what you asked; I obviously just didn't do enough, and I am sorry. > So it looks like it's not enough to just set that flag. We have to > actually revert all the commits in this area as broken. > > Which is sad, but since they clearly *are* broken and don't honor the > flag that was there explicitly to avoid this problem and make it easy > to test reverting it, I'm really pissed off. The WHOLE POINT of that > flag was to give people an option to say "use the old resource > allocation order because the new one doesn't work for me". > > So at this point the only question is whether I should just revert the > whole effing lot, or whether there are patches to fix the code to > honor the "allocate from bottom" bit and then just set it by default > again. > > Bjorn? Preferences? Let me identify the set of reversion candidates and the consequences, and then we can figure out whether it's better to retreat or push forward. Bjorn