On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 03:16:37PM +0400, Ivan Kokshaysky wrote: > On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 02:53:13AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 01:55:36AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > Unfortunately if this patch does cause any machine to break, these will > > > be machines that worked fine up until this point, so that would be a > > > regression, which is worse. Life sucks. > > > > If, after a while, you think the change should go into the -stable tree, > > I have no objection. > > I think it shouldn't - this change will almost certainly cause a regression. > There is a lot of system devices besides the host bridges that shouldn't be > disabled during BAR probe, like interrupt controllers, power management > controllers and so on.
Well, if it's going to cause a regression with machines that currently work properly, I'll just drop it entirely. I would much rather not have a machine work at all with Linux, than break other people's working machines. > We need a more sophisticated fix - I'm thinking of introducing "probe" field > in struct pci_dev which can be set by "early" quirk routines. That might work out well. Matthew, want to look into this for a possible way to get your fix into the tree in a way that will not affect others? thanks, greg k-h - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/