* H. Peter Anvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> as an intermediate fix, how about following the attribute of the
>> already existing mapping, instead of rejecting the ioremap due to the
>> conflict? I.e. something like below?
>
> The correct behaviour probably would be to go with the most
> restrictive caching behaviour, i.e. uncached in this case.
yeah. Or, to be on the safest side, forcing UC in this case. We'll have
a warning message anyway, so it wont go unnoticed - but we wont break
drivers.
Ingo
--------->
Subject: x86: patches/pat-conflict-fixup.patch
From: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
arch/x86/mm/pat.c | 7 ++++++-
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: linux-x86.q/arch/x86/mm/pat.c
===================================================================
--- linux-x86.q.orig/arch/x86/mm/pat.c
+++ linux-x86.q/arch/x86/mm/pat.c
@@ -174,7 +174,12 @@ int reserve_mattr(u64 start, u64 end, un
current->comm, current->pid,
start, end,
cattr_name(attr), cattr_name(ml->attr));
- err = -EBUSY;
+ /*
+ * Force UC on a conflict:
+ */
+ ma->attr = _PAGE_UC;
+ if (*fattr)
+ *fattr = _PAGE_UC;
break;
}
} else if (ml->start >= end) {
--
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/
