From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752579AbaGPU1F (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jul 2014 16:27:05 -0400 Received: from mail-ie0-f181.google.com ([209.85.223.181]:43541 "EHLO mail-ie0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752352AbaGPU06 (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jul 2014 16:26:58 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20140716213513.18895776q3wl3oj5@berry.schulz.ip-v6.eu> References: <53C63139.7000608@kristov.de> <20140716213513.18895776q3wl3oj5@berry.schulz.ip-v6.eu> From: Bjorn Helgaas Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 14:26:37 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86: don't exclude low BIOS area when allocating address space for non-PCI cards To: Christoph Schulz Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , "x86@kernel.org" , Robert Resch 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 Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Christoph Schulz wrote: > Hello! > > Bjorn Helgaas schrieb am Wed, 16 Jul 2014 13:00:21 -0600: > > >> I applied this to pci/misc for v3.17, thanks. > > > Thank you very much. What do you think about queuing it up to -stable? > Commit 30919b0bf356 is in the tree since 2.6.37-rc7. We have used the > proposed patch for over a year (since 3.2.42 / 3.7.10 / 3.8.5, to be exact) > without any regressions. I *think* it meets the criteria for -stable, but I > don't have much experience of Linux kernel development processes, so it's > your decision, of course. Good point, I added: CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # v2.6.37+ >> This effectively reverts 30919b0bf356 ("x86: avoid low BIOS area when >> allocating address space"). I don't see a reference there to a bug >> fixed by 30919b0bf356, so hopefully reverting it won't reintroduce a >> bug. > > > Well, for PCI, the current behaviour does not change effectively, and for > ISA, the proposed patch fixes a bug. What memory allocations beyond ISA and > PCI could be adversely affected? There aren't very many, I guess, but I don't want to build things on the assumption that ISA and PCI are the only possibilities. ISA was once the only possibility :) Bjorn