* Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > please check some updated patches in -mm that could be affected.
> > hope it could save you some time
> >
> > x86-validate-against-acpi-motherboard-resources.patch
> > x86-clear-pci_mmcfg_virt-when-mmcfg-get-rejected.patch
> > x86-mmconf-enable-mcf
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 17:49:34 -0800
"Yinghai Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 10, 2008 12:45 PM, Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 12:24:18PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Sun, 10 Feb 2008, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I suggest Ivan's
On Feb 10, 2008 6:53 PM, Robert Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > On Feb 10, 2008 12:45 PM, Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
..
> >> I've attached the two patches that I believe are the ones we want. We
> >> can (and should) fix quirk_intel_irqbalance separately
Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Feb 10, 2008 12:45 PM, Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 12:24:18PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008, Yinghai Lu wrote:
I suggest Ivan's patch be merged ASAP as it actually fixes bugs.
This patch is just cleanup (and takes ca
On Feb 10, 2008 12:45 PM, Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 12:24:18PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Sun, 10 Feb 2008, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I suggest Ivan's patch be merged ASAP as it actually fixes bugs.
> > > > This patch is just cleanup (and
On Feb 10, 2008 12:32 PM, Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 12:25:02PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > Even Greg didn't know that there was another patch need to be applied
> > before this one yesterday.
>
> I don't believe you. For example:
>
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2008
eachable(unsigned int seg, unsigned int bus,
- unsigned int devfn);
extern int __init pci_mmcfg_arch_init(void);
/*
--
1.5.2.5
>From ad4c3f135cda6f5210735231d30ef8e9dbd58c7c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dat
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 12:25:02PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> Even Greg didn't know that there was another patch need to be applied
> before this one yesterday.
I don't believe you. For example:
On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 02:53:34PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> Please send me patches, in a form that can
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >
> > I suggest Ivan's patch be merged ASAP as it actually fixes bugs.
> > This patch is just cleanup (and takes care of some future concerns).
>
> your patch and Ivan's patch should be merged in one...
I really don't care whether they get merges as one
On Feb 10, 2008 12:19 PM, Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 12:16:43PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > On Feb 10, 2008 6:51 AM, Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 11:21:16PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > Can I get a revised versi
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 12:16:43PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Feb 10, 2008 6:51 AM, Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 11:21:16PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > > Can I get a revised version of this, without the incorrect hunk?
> >
> > Sure. I've even rebased it ag
On Feb 10, 2008 6:51 AM, Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 11:21:16PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > Can I get a revised version of this, without the incorrect hunk?
>
> Sure. I've even rebased it against current HEAD. Damn whitespace
> cleanup introducing unnecessary
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 12:13:13PM -0700, Grant Grundler wrote:
> Just wondering...why don't we just pass "struct bus*" through to the
> raw_pci* ops?
> My thinking is if a PCI bus controller or bridge is discovered, then we should
> always create a matching "struct bus *".
ACPI may need to access
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 07:51:22AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> From: Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 09:45:28 -0500
> Subject: [PATCH] Change pci_raw_ops to pci_raw_read/write
...
> -static int
> -pci_read (struct pci_bus *bus, unsigned int devfn
ctually fixes bugs.
This patch is just cleanup (and takes care of some future concerns).
>From ad4c3f135cda6f5210735231d30ef8e9dbd58c7c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 09:45:28 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] Change pci_raw_ops to pci_raw_
On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 10:25:23PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Feb 9, 2008 4:41 AM, Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 10:54:05AM -0500, Tony Camuso wrote:
> > > Matthew,
> > >
> > > Perhaps I missed it, but did you address Yinghai's concerns?
> >
> > No, I was
On Feb 9, 2008 4:41 AM, Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 10:54:05AM -0500, Tony Camuso wrote:
> > Matthew,
> >
> > Perhaps I missed it, but did you address Yinghai's concerns?
>
> No, I was on holiday.
>
> > Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > >On Jan 28, 2008 7:03 PM, Matthew
On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 10:54:05AM -0500, Tony Camuso wrote:
> Matthew,
>
> Perhaps I missed it, but did you address Yinghai's concerns?
No, I was on holiday.
> Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >On Jan 28, 2008 7:03 PM, Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>-int pci_conf1_write(unsigned int seg,
On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 11:36:18AM -0500, Tony Camuso wrote:
> Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 10:54:05 -0500
>> Tony Camuso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Matthew,
>>>
>>> Perhaps I missed it, but did you address Yinghai's concerns?
>>>
>>> Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Jan 28, 2008 7:0
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 10:54:05 -0500
Tony Camuso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Matthew,
Perhaps I missed it, but did you address Yinghai's concerns?
Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Jan 28, 2008 7:03 PM, Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-int pci_conf1_write(unsigned int seg,
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 10:54:05 -0500
Tony Camuso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew,
>
> Perhaps I missed it, but did you address Yinghai's concerns?
>
> Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > On Jan 28, 2008 7:03 PM, Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> -int pci_conf1_write(unsigned int seg, unsi
Matthew,
Perhaps I missed it, but did you address Yinghai's concerns?
Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Jan 28, 2008 7:03 PM, Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-int pci_conf1_write(unsigned int seg, unsigned int bus,
+static int pci_conf1_write(unsigned int seg, unsigned int bus,
On Jan 28, 2008 7:03 PM, Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> We want to allow different implementations of pci_raw_ops for standard
> and extended config space on x86. Rather than clutter generic code with
> knowledge of this, we make pci_raw_ops private to x86 and use it to
> implement
We want to allow different implementations of pci_raw_ops for standard
and extended config space on x86. Rather than clutter generic code with
knowledge of this, we make pci_raw_ops private to x86 and use it to
implement the new raw interface -- raw_pci_read() and raw_pci_write().
Signed-off-by:
24 matches
Mail list logo
