From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:56:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:56:22 -0400 Received: from panic.ohr.gatech.edu ([130.207.47.194]:728 "HELO havoc.gtf.org") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:56:18 -0400 Message-ID: <3B2B9DA3.3E310BF7@mandrakesoft.com> Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:55:47 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik Organization: MandrakeSoft X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.6-pre3 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alan Cox Cc: Eric Smith , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , arjanv@redhat.com, mj@ucw.cz Subject: Re: 2.4.2 yenta_socket problems on ThinkPad 240 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Alan Cox wrote: > > > I would love to just define it unconditionally for x86, but I believe > > Martin said that causes problems with some hardware, and the way the > > BIOS has set up that hardware. (details anyone?) > > Im not sure unconditionally is wise. However turning it into a routine that > walks the PCI bus tree and returns 1 if a duplicate is found seems to be > a little bit less likely to cause suprises That would work, but is really a bandaid because we don't know what the real problem is... this still smells vaguely like yenta and pci bus core should be more than just the kissing cousins they are now. OTOH I still don't like how much we trust firmware PCI bus setup on x86.. I am pretty lucky on Alpha, we already trust the kernel PCI code implicitly by unconditionally defining pcibios_assign_all_busses to one. :) Jeff -- Jeff Garzik | Andre the Giant has a posse. Building 1024 | MandrakeSoft |