On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Joseph Salisbury
wrote:
> On 09/17/2014 03:46 AM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Joseph Salisbury
>>> wrote:
A new bug[0] was opened due to enabling PCI_REALLOC_ENABLE_AUTO, which
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Joseph Salisbury
wrote:
> On 09/16/2014 06:27 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Joseph Salisbury
>> wrote:
>>> A new bug[0] was opened due to enabling PCI_REALLOC_ENABLE_AUTO, which
>>> is similar to the original bug[1] we discussed.
>>>
>>
On 09/17/2014 03:46 AM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Joseph Salisbury
>> wrote:
>>> A new bug[0] was opened due to enabling PCI_REALLOC_ENABLE_AUTO, which
>>> is similar to the original bug[1] we discussed.
>>>
>>> Just
On 09/25/2014 12:04 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Joseph Salisbury
> wrote:
>> On 09/16/2014 06:27 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Joseph Salisbury
>>> wrote:
A new bug[0] was opened due to enabling PCI_REALLOC_ENABLE_AUTO, which
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Joseph Salisbury
wrote:
> On 09/16/2014 06:27 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Joseph Salisbury
>> wrote:
>>> A new bug[0] was opened due to enabling PCI_REALLOC_ENABLE_AUTO, which
>>> is similar to the original bug[1] we discussed.
>>>
>>
On 09/16/2014 06:27 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Joseph Salisbury
> wrote:
>> A new bug[0] was opened due to enabling PCI_REALLOC_ENABLE_AUTO, which
>> is similar to the original bug[1] we discussed.
>>
>> Just wondering if there have been any additional ideas on reallo
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 12:46:24AM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Joseph Salisbury
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> A new bug[0] was opened due to enabling PCI_REALLOC_ENABLE_AUTO, which
> >> is similar to the original bug[1]
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Joseph Salisbury
> wrote:
>>
>> A new bug[0] was opened due to enabling PCI_REALLOC_ENABLE_AUTO, which
>> is similar to the original bug[1] we discussed.
>>
>> Just wondering if there have been any additional id
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Joseph Salisbury
wrote:
>
> A new bug[0] was opened due to enabling PCI_REALLOC_ENABLE_AUTO, which
> is similar to the original bug[1] we discussed.
>
> Just wondering if there have been any additional ideas on realloc since
> this was last discussed?
>
> [0] http:
On 01/10/2014 12:13 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Joseph Salisbury
> wrote:
>> On 12/11/2013 02:55 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Joseph Salisbury
>>> wrote:
On 12/09/2013 03:10 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 11:42 A
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Joseph Salisbury
wrote:
> On 01/10/2014 12:13 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>
> In a prior email you mentioned: "Yes, if that works, we would not need
> to put the patch in upstream for limiting realloc auto scope." Is the
> git tree at
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linu
On 01/10/2014 12:13 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Joseph Salisbury
> wrote:
>> On 12/11/2013 02:55 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Joseph Salisbury
>>> wrote:
On 12/09/2013 03:10 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 11:42 A
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Joseph Salisbury
wrote:
> On 12/11/2013 02:55 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Joseph Salisbury
>> wrote:
>>> On 12/09/2013 03:10 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> That doesn't answer
On 12/11/2013 02:55 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Joseph Salisbury
> wrote:
>> On 12/09/2013 03:10 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
That doesn't answer my question at all.
I understand that this change makes
On 12/11/2013 02:55 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Joseph Salisbury
> wrote:
>> On 12/09/2013 03:10 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
That doesn't answer my question at all.
I understand that this change makes
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Joseph Salisbury
wrote:
> On 12/09/2013 03:10 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>> That doesn't answer my question at all.
>>>
>>> I understand that this change makes it so Joseph doesn't have to use
>>> "pci=realloc=
On 12/09/2013 03:10 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> That doesn't answer my question at all.
>>
>> I understand that this change makes it so Joseph doesn't have to use
>> "pci=realloc=off". But why should auto-reallocation be limited to
>> buses tha
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>
>> Yes, I agree. I didn't say it would be simple. The quick fix would
>> be easy for now, but adding nonsensical code makes our lives harder
>> long into the future.
>
> If the old kernel
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> Yes, I agree. I didn't say it would be simple. The quick fix would
> be easy for now, but adding nonsensical code makes our lives harder
> long into the future.
If the old kernel is working, and user update kernel then we should
not reque
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> That doesn't answer my question at all.
>>
>> I understand that this change makes it so Joseph doesn't have to use
>> "pci=realloc=off". But why should auto-reallocation be limited to
>>
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> That doesn't answer my question at all.
>
> I understand that this change makes it so Joseph doesn't have to use
> "pci=realloc=off". But why should auto-reallocation be limited to
> buses that have resources above 4GB? That doesn't make an
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> I don't see how the question of whether the host bridge has an
>> aperture above 4G is related to whether we should automatically
>> reassign resources. They seem orthogonal to me. No do
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> I don't see how the question of whether the host bridge has an
> aperture above 4G is related to whether we should automatically
> reassign resources. They seem orthogonal to me. No doubt it "fixes"
> the current problem, but it doesn't make
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> Joseph found
> | commit b07f2ebc109b607789f648dedcff4b125f9afec6
> | Date: Thu Feb 23 19:23:32 2012 -0800
> |
> |PCI: add a PCI resource reallocation config option
>
> cause one system can not load driver for Intel x520 NIC's.
>
> The root
24 matches
Mail list logo
