On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> how about replacing that with:
>>
>> if (avail.start > avail.end)
>> continue;
>>
>> so we do not need to go deep into allocate_resource()
>
> We could, but why
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> Paul reported that after f75b99d5a77d ("PCI: Enforce bus address limits in
>> resource allocation") on a 32-bit kernel (CONFIG_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT not
>> set), intel-gtt complained "can't
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> Paul reported that after f75b99d5a77d ("PCI: Enforce bus address limits in
> resource allocation") on a 32-bit kernel (CONFIG_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT not
> set), intel-gtt complained "can't ioremap flush page - no chipset
> flushing". In
Paul reported that after f75b99d5a77d ("PCI: Enforce bus address limits in
resource allocation") on a 32-bit kernel (CONFIG_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT not
set), intel-gtt complained "can't ioremap flush page - no chipset
flushing". In addition, other PCI resource allocations, e.g., for bridge
windows,
Paul reported that after f75b99d5a77d (PCI: Enforce bus address limits in
resource allocation) on a 32-bit kernel (CONFIG_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT not
set), intel-gtt complained can't ioremap flush page - no chipset
flushing. In addition, other PCI resource allocations, e.g., for bridge
windows, failed.
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Bjorn Helgaas bhelg...@google.com wrote:
Paul reported that after f75b99d5a77d (PCI: Enforce bus address limits in
resource allocation) on a 32-bit kernel (CONFIG_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT not
set), intel-gtt complained can't ioremap flush page - no chipset
flushing.
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Yinghai Lu ying...@kernel.org wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Bjorn Helgaas bhelg...@google.com wrote:
Paul reported that after f75b99d5a77d (PCI: Enforce bus address limits in
resource allocation) on a 32-bit kernel (CONFIG_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT not
set),
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Bjorn Helgaas bhelg...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Yinghai Lu ying...@kernel.org wrote:
how about replacing that with:
if (avail.start avail.end)
continue;
so we do not need to go deep into
8 matches
Mail list logo
