Re: [patch] pci: revert "PCI: remove transparent bridge sizing"

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008, Ivan Kokshaysky wrote:
> 
> If the new "align" field (and then, maybe, "size" instead of "end"?)
> is OK, then I'm definitely willing to give it a try.

Adding an alignment field should be a non-issue: the size of this 
structure is not likely to be a big deal (yeah, we have something like 12 
of them in each PCI device etc, so smaller is better, but it's still not 
going to be something anybody really notices).

And yeah, it might be nice to have "size" instead of "end", but the real 
problem with that one is actually that on 32-bit (without the 64-bit 
resource configuration) we want it to be "size-1" in order to be able to 
fit a whole 0-0xffffffff resource into a resource.

And *that* would be really ugly with "size": at least right now it makes a 
certain amount of sense with "end" pointing to the last entry.

So while I can understand your wish for "start+len" rather than 
"start+end", I don't think it's really practical.

		Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/