Re: [PATCH 0/3] x86/PCI: Clip only partial E820 overlaps

From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
To: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
Cc: "Bjorn Helgaas" <helgaas@kernel.org>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	"Borislav Petkov" <bp@alien8.de>,
	"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@redhat.com>,
	"Krzysztof Wilczyński" <kw@linux.com>,
	"Myron Stowe" <myron.stowe@redhat.com>,
	"Juha-Pekka Heikkila" <juhapekka.heikkila@gmail.com>,
	"Benoit Grégoire" <benoitg@coeus.ca>,
	"Hui Wang" <hui.wang@canonical.com>,
	"Kai-Heng Feng" <kai.heng.feng@canonical.com>,
	linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
	x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	"Bjorn Helgaas" <bhelgaas@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] x86/PCI: Clip only partial E820 overlaps
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2022 17:21:41 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YiIuhYVpgkzVwtAi@lahna> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4836963c-7a1e-7452-eb88-454f2b75e407@redhat.com>

Hi,

On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 03:15:16PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi Bjorn,
> 
> On 3/4/22 04:51, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > From: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
> > 
> > This is based on Hans' extensive debugging and patch at
> > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220228105259.230903-1-hdegoede@redhat.com
> > and applies on 7e57714cd0ad ("Linux 5.17-rc6").
> > 
> > This is basically the same idea (applying the 4dc2287c1805 workaround only
> > when an E820 region *partially* overlaps a host bridge window), but I think
> > it's a little simpler.
> > 
> > This also adds a little dmesg output when clipping, which should make
> > future debugging easier.
> > 
> > I bcc'd several folks who didn't have public email addresses in the RedHat
> > bugzilla or Launchpad.  If you review or test this, I'd be happy to
> > acknowledge that.
> > 
> > Bjorn Helgaas (3):
> >   x86/PCI: Eliminate remove_e820_regions() common subexpressions
> >   x86/PCI: Log host bridge window clipping for E820 regions
> >   x86/PCI: Preserve host bridge windows completely covered by E820
> 
> Thanks, I agree that this is better then my fix I also like the logging
> added to 2/3 which lets us know if the commit 4dc2287c1805 workaround
> is active.
> 
> I have one small remark on 3/3. Regardless of that getting addressed
> the entire series is:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>

Looks good to me too :)

Reviewed-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>