Re: [PATCH] 2.6 SGI Altix I/O code reorganization
From: Jesse Barnes (jbarnes_at_engr.sgi.com)
Date: 10/06/04
- Previous message: Peter Williams: "Re: KVM -> jumping mouse... still no solution?"
- Maybe in reply to: Pat Gefre: "[PATCH] 2.6 SGI Altix I/O code reorganization"
- Next in thread: Matthew Wilcox: "Re: [PATCH] 2.6 SGI Altix I/O code reorganization"
- Reply: Matthew Wilcox: "Re: [PATCH] 2.6 SGI Altix I/O code reorganization"
- Reply: Colin Ngam: "Re: [PATCH] 2.6 SGI Altix I/O code reorganization"
- Reply: Grant Grundler: "Re: [PATCH] 2.6 SGI Altix I/O code reorganization"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
To: Grant Grundler <iod00d@hp.com> Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 13:27:28 -0700
On Wednesday, October 6, 2004 12:54 pm, Grant Grundler wrote:
> Colin,
> thanks for ACKing the feedback.
> I think there is still some confusion...
>
> On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 02:09:54PM -0500, Colin Ngam wrote:
> ...
>
> > > Mathew explained replacing the raw_pci_ops pointer is the Right Thing
> > > and I suspect it's easier to properly implement.
> >
> > I believe we did just that. We did not touch pci_root_ops.
>
> Correct. The patch ignores/overides pci_root_ops with sn_pci_root_ops
> (which is what I originally suggested).
>
> Mathew's point was only raw_pci_ops needs to point at a different
> set of struct pci_raw_ops (see include/linux/pci.h).
Though now what's there seems awfully redundant, wouldn't you say? Just
allowing direct access to pci_root_ops is a much simpler approach and gets
rid of a bunch of extra, unneeded code (i.e. closer to Pat's original
version).
> > Yes, would anybody allow us to make a platform specific callout
> > from within generic pcibios_fixup_bus()???
>
> If it can be avoided, preferably not. But that's up to Jesse/Tony I think.
If it was made a machine vector that's a no-op on everything but sn2, I think
it would be fine. Doing it for the general sn_pci_init routine would let us
get rid of the check for ia64_platform_is("sn2") in one of the routines, I
think (which is nice if only for the consistency).
> Can you quote the bit of the patch which implements "if the bus does not
> exist" check?
> I can't find it.
In the current code it's:
for (i = 0; i < PCI_BUSES_TO_SCAN; i++)
if (pci_bus_to_vertex(i))
pci_scan_bus(i, &sn_pci_ops, controller);
which causes the next loop to only fixup existing busses. But I don't see it
in the new code.
> > One favour. Would you agree to letting this patch be included by Tony
> > and we will come up with another patch to fix the 2 obvious items listed
> > above? It will be great to avoid spinning this big patch.
The patch is ok with me, I think it's a big improvement over what's there in
terms of readability.
I just checked out sn_set_affinity_irq() and it's a bit hard to see what's
going on. Why does a new interrupt have to be allocated? Also, it looks
like the kfree() is one line too high, if sn_intr_alloc fails, we'll leak
new_sn_irq_info.
Jesse
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Previous message: Peter Williams: "Re: KVM -> jumping mouse... still no solution?"
- Maybe in reply to: Pat Gefre: "[PATCH] 2.6 SGI Altix I/O code reorganization"
- Next in thread: Matthew Wilcox: "Re: [PATCH] 2.6 SGI Altix I/O code reorganization"
- Reply: Matthew Wilcox: "Re: [PATCH] 2.6 SGI Altix I/O code reorganization"
- Reply: Colin Ngam: "Re: [PATCH] 2.6 SGI Altix I/O code reorganization"
- Reply: Grant Grundler: "Re: [PATCH] 2.6 SGI Altix I/O code reorganization"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
