On Wed, 2003-11-19 at 20:46, Dave Jones wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 11:44:42AM -0800, James Jones wrote:
hammers[i++] = loop_dev;
nr_garts = i;
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
if (i == MAX_HAMMER_GARTS) {
printk(KERN_INFO PFX Too many northbridges for
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 11:17:17AM -0800, James Jones wrote:
diff -ruN linux-2.6.0-test7/arch/x86_64/kernel/pci-gart.c
linux-2.6.0-test7-fixed/arch/x86_64/kernel/pci-gart.c
--- linux-2.6.0-test7/arch/x86_64/kernel/pci-gart.c 2003-10-08 12:24:04.0
-0700
+++
Dave,
Similar patch to Ronny's, but also changes a config check on x86_64
arch. It struck me that this patch is still slightly wrong. It should
check the number of bridges already found before going through the
entire detection routine again shouldn't it?
-James
Dave Jones wrote:
On Fri,
hammers[i++] = loop_dev;
nr_garts = i;
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
if (i == MAX_HAMMER_GARTS) {
printk(KERN_INFO PFX Too many northbridges for AGP\n);
return -1;
}
Seems wrong to me... wouldn't this return -1 if say, MAX_HAMMER_GARTS ==
1 and 1 gart was
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 11:44:42AM -0800, James Jones wrote:
hammers[i++] = loop_dev;
nr_garts = i;
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
if (i == MAX_HAMMER_GARTS) {
printk(KERN_INFO PFX Too many northbridges for AGP\n);
return -1;
}
Seems
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 08:56:32PM +0100, Ronny V. Vindenes wrote:
If we have an SMP system with an SMP kernel, we add however many
GARTs to the table, up to a limit of MAX_HAMMER_GARTS.
It looks like you'll add GARTS up to MAX_HAMMER_GARTS-1 then bomb if
there is an
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 12:13:37PM -0800, James Jones wrote:
Ronny V. Vindenes wrote
It looks like you'll add GARTS up to MAX_HAMMER_GARTS-1 then bomb if
there is an MAX_HAMMER_GARTS'th GART.
Yes, thanks for putting it more clearly Ronny.
Dave, try walking through the
Ronny V. Vindenes wrote
It looks like you'll add GARTS up to MAX_HAMMER_GARTS-1 then bomb if
there is an MAX_HAMMER_GARTS'th GART.
Yes, thanks for putting it more clearly Ronny.
Dave, try walking through the code with MAX_HAMMER_GARTS=2 and SMP
enabled. You should quickly see what we
The ( i MAX_HAMMER_GARTS) fix was just an example. The test really
needs to be == and be moved before the
hammers[i++] = loop_dev;
assignment, or hammers will be overflowed, as I mentioned in my previous
email.
Also, it really seems like this test should be done before you go
through all
