Re: [PATCH 0/8] PCI, ACPI, x86: Reserve fw allocated resource forhot-add root bus

From: Bjorn Helgaas
Date: Wed Jan 09 2013 - 12:35:59 EST


On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> I'm really sorry that it's taken me so long to get to these.
>>>
>>> I applied these to my pci/yinghai-survey-resources branch. I
>>> re-ordered the last two and reworked some of the changelogs.
>>
>> To be clear about this, the pci/yinghai-survey-resources branch I
>> mentioned is a staging branch that just gets build test coverage. I
>> don't plan to actually merge this or put it into -next until the
>> questions below are resolved.
>>
>> My inclination, until I'm persuaded otherwise, is to wait for patches
>> that preserve the similarities among these architectures.
>
> I don't know, that could be separated patcheset after we conclude
> pci root bus hotplug support.

The main reason I review patches before merging them is to identify
issues that we can fix before they affect everybody. It makes my life
a lot easier if I don't have to keep track of pending unaddressed
review comments. Is there an advantage to waiting and doing this work
later?

>>> In general these look good. My main concern is that they only touch
>>> x86, without touching the similar code in frv, microblaze, mn10300,
>>> and powerpc.
>>>
>>> This code (pcibios_resource_survey(), pcibios_assign_resources(),
>>> pcibios_allocate_resources(), pcibios_allocate_bus_resources()) was
>>> obviously copied from x86 originally, and I'd like to preserve the
>>> similarity between them. It would be even better to refactor it so
>>> it's actually *shared*, but I don't think that's a requirement right
>>> now.
>
> yes, should be moved to drivers/pci
>
>>>
>>> If we allow it to diverge now, it will make it harder to refactor and
>>> harder to notice when bug fixes should be applied to all of them. For
>>> example, looking at pcibios_allocate_resources(), commit 575939cf5
>>> added some SR-IOV support to x86. Should similar code be added for
>>> frv, microblaze, mn10300, and powerpc?
>
> should be treated the same.
>
>>>
>>> Anybody else have thoughts on this?
>>>
>>> Bjorn
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/