> Yeah, you do.  I fully understood _that_ context; I think Mike
> was talking about other context.  It's pretty clear to me that
> ranges ought to be per bridge chipset, rather than global... I
> thought that that was what the option was working around: that
> they were not.

I can't imagine how you came to this conclusion.  You won't get it from 
reading the code, or from understanding how PCI works.  Maybe you need 
sleep too.

The problem is twofold:

 - The code is broken, it fails to take into account both prefetched and 
   non-prefetched bridge mappings.  It also appears to miscompute the
   start of one of the attempted range accesses.

 - There is anecdotal evidence that some bridges pass ranges other than 
   those advertised in their mappings, so even if the first problem is 
   resolved, enforcing correctness may result in occasional lossage.

And, since you ask, the whole reason behind having this code in the 
first place is that we need to be able to correctly assign resources for 
devices behind bridges.

I got run over by a car last time I worked on this code.  Time for 
someone else to pick it up.

 = Mike

To announce that there must be no criticism of the president,
or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not
only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to 
the American public.  - Theodore Roosevelt

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to