Re: Linux 2.6.28-rc8

[Ingo Molnar]

* Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 08:11:35 -0800 (PST)
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > 
> > > another thing we could do is try to only warn if you cross bar
> > > boundaries but not if you cross other user-of-the-resource
> > > boundaries.
> > 
> > Hmm. We could use the res->flags for this. But I'm not sure non-PCI 
> > resources fill those in correctly.
> > 
> > A pure "busy" allocation (ie a driver marker) would generally have
> > just the IORESOURCE_BUSY bit set, while a real PCI hardware resource
> > will have other bits set (ie the IORESOURCE_IO/MEM bits) and not be
> > marked BUSY.
> > 
> > Maybe just ignoring resources with BUSY set, as they are driver
> > markers rather than actual HW resources.
> 
> something like this: ?

okay, i've applied it in the form below, to tip/core/resources. This in 
combination with the toning down of the messages should do the trick i 
think.

btw., here's a bug that got caught by the sanity checks:

| commit d522af581c6abd0e064278345ca638b0553a93fa
| Author: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@xxxxxxxxx>
| Date:   Mon Oct 20 17:57:02 2008 -0300
|
|     V4L/DVB (9356): [PATCH] saa7134: fix resource map sanity check conflict
|    
|     Impact: driver could possibly stomp on resources outside of its scope

so it's not just nuisance.

> Note: having two drivers talk to the same hardware at the same
> time is obviously not optimal behavior, but that's a separate story.

it will be much more likely to be caught via other misbehavior i guess. 

	Ingo

------------------>