On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 02:53:13AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 01:55:36AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > Unfortunately if this patch does cause any machine to break, these will
> > be machines that worked fine up until this point, so that would be a
> > regression, which is worse. Life sucks.
>
> If, after a while, you think the change should go into the -stable tree,
> I have no objection.
I think it shouldn't - this change will almost certainly cause a regression.
There is a lot of system devices besides the host bridges that shouldn't be
disabled during BAR probe, like interrupt controllers, power management
controllers and so on.
We need a more sophisticated fix - I'm thinking of introducing "probe" field
in struct pci_dev which can be set by "early" quirk routines.
Ivan.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
