lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 2.6.33-rc0 regression: 256MB CF card no longer recognized in PCMCIA slot
Hey,

On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 05:34:15PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On 12/19/2009 04:55 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >Hi!
> >
> >Subject pretty much says it all... I do get some messages on the
> >console, I'll try to gather them.
>
> Which driver(s) no longer see it? Do you think it's the PCMCIA
> subsystem, IDE, libata or other?

My suspicion is that it might be kernel/resource.c -- Pavel, does this patch
fix the issue you're seeing?

Best,
Dominik


From: Dominik Brodowski <linux@dominikbrodowski.net>
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 10:04:56 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] resources: fix call to alignf() in allocate_resource()

The second parameter to alignf() in allocate_resource() must
reflect what new resource is attempted to be allocated, else
functions like pcibios_align_resource() (at least on x86) or
pcmcia_align() can't work correctly.

Commit 1e5ad9679016275d422e36b12a98b0927d76f556 broke this by
setting the "new" resource until we're about to return success.
To keep the resource untouched when allocate_resource() fails,
a "tmp" resource is introduced.

CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
CC: Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com>
CC: Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@hp.com>
CC: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
Signed-off-by: Dominik Brodowski <linux@dominikbrodowski.net>

diff --git a/kernel/resource.c b/kernel/resource.c
index dc15686..af96c1e 100644
--- a/kernel/resource.c
+++ b/kernel/resource.c
@@ -308,37 +308,37 @@ static int find_resource(struct resource *root, struct resource *new,
void *alignf_data)
{
struct resource *this = root->child;
- resource_size_t start, end;
+ struct resource tmp = *new;

- start = root->start;
+ tmp.start = root->start;
/*
* Skip past an allocated resource that starts at 0, since the assignment
- * of this->start - 1 to new->end below would cause an underflow.
+ * of this->start - 1 to tmp->end below would cause an underflow.
*/
if (this && this->start == 0) {
- start = this->end + 1;
+ tmp.start = this->end + 1;
this = this->sibling;
}
for(;;) {
if (this)
- end = this->start - 1;
+ tmp.end = this->start - 1;
else
- end = root->end;
- if (start < min)
- start = min;
- if (end > max)
- end = max;
- start = ALIGN(start, align);
+ tmp.end = root->end;
+ if (tmp.start < min)
+ tmp.start = min;
+ if (tmp.end > max)
+ tmp.end = max;
+ tmp.start = ALIGN(tmp.start, align);
if (alignf)
- alignf(alignf_data, new, size, align);
- if (start < end && end - start >= size - 1) {
- new->start = start;
- new->end = start + size - 1;
+ alignf(alignf_data, &tmp, size, align);
+ if (tmp.start < tmp.end && tmp.end - tmp.start >= size - 1) {
+ new->start = tmp.start;
+ new->end = tmp.start + size - 1;
return 0;
}
if (!this)
break;
- start = this->end + 1;
+ tmp.start = this->end + 1;
this = this->sibling;
}
return -EBUSY;

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-20 10:55    [W:0.052 / U:0.896 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site