From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759293AbbA3Q4p (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jan 2015 11:56:45 -0500 Received: from mail-qa0-f43.google.com ([209.85.216.43]:43739 "EHLO mail-qa0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754746AbbA3Q4n (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jan 2015 11:56:43 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20150123203145.GA6691@google.com> From: Bjorn Helgaas Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 10:56:22 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] PCI fixes for v3.19 To: Yinghai Lu Cc: Tony Luck , Linus Torvalds , "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Lucas Stach , Richard Zhu , Marek Kordik , Alex Williamson , Andreas Hartmann , Alexey Voronkov , David Airlie , Alex Deucher Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote: > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Tony Luck wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 7:43 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote: >>> Can you please get boot bog with "debug ignore_logleve"? >>> >>> we should get print out from >>> >>> + dev_printk(KERN_DEBUG, &dev->dev, "%pR clipped to %pR\n", >>> + &orig_res, res); >> >> Attached ... but I don't see any "clipped" messages > > Good. so the system should just work as before but have annoying warnings. > > Do we need to put the paper back to hide the warning? Ping, I'm not sure this is resolved. Tony, does the system work as it did before? Is the only problem that now we have more warnings than we did before? Yinghai, I sort of feel like I'm being left to sweep up behind your changes here. I *could* analyze this and figure out what's going on and fix it, but I don't have time to do that for everybody, and I consider that more your job. If we start with the same _CRS config and same device config, ideally PCI enumeration would produce the same messages, same warnings, and same resource assignments no matter what arch we feed them to, because enumeration is not really arch-specific. So if ia64 does something different here, I think something needs to be fixed. Bjorn