linux-kernel - Re: pnpacpi : exceeded the max number of IO resources

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 4 Dec 2007 09:15:40 +0800
From:	Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@...il.com>
To:	Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>
Cc:	Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl>, yakui.zhao@...el.com,
	Chris Holvenstot <cholvenstot@...cast.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bjorn.helgaas@...com, trenn@...e.de,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Subject: Re: pnpacpi : exceeded the max number of IO resources

On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 08:55:13AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 18:02 +0100, Rene Herman wrote:
> > On 30-11-07 23:22, Rene Herman wrote:
> > 
> > > On 30-11-07 14:14, Chris Holvenstot wrote:
> > > 
> > >> For what it is worth I too have seen this problem this morning and it
> > >> DOES appear to be new (in contrast to a previous comment)
> > >>
> > >> The message:  pnpacpi: exceeded the max number of mem resources: 12
> > >>
> > >> is displayed each time the system is booted with the 2.6.24-rc3-git5
> > >> kernel but is NOT displayed when booting 2.6.24-rc3-git4
> > >>
> > >> I have made no changes in my config file between these two kernels other
> > >> than to accept any new defaults when running make oldconfig.
> > >>
> > >> If you had already narrowed it down to a change between git4 and git5 I
> > >> apologize for wasting your time.  Have to run to work now.
> > > 
> > > Thanks, and re-added the proper CCs. Sigh...
> > > 
> > > Well, yes, the warning is actually new as well. Previously your kernel 
> > > just silently ignored 8 more mem resources than it does now it seems.
> > > 
> > > Given that people are hitting these limits, it might make sense to just 
> > > do away with the warning for 2.6.24 again while waiting for the dynamic 
> > > code?
> > 
> > Ping. Should these warnings be reverted for 2.6.24?
> Revert the warning doesn't make any sense. I'd suggest changing the IO
> resources number bigger till Thomas's patch in.
Agree.
Change it to 90 works for me, But I think maybe 128 is better.

include/linux/pnp.h |    2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff -upr linux/include/linux/pnp.h linux.new/include/linux/pnp.h
--- linux/include/linux/pnp.h	2007-12-04 09:09:23.000000000 +0800
+++ linux.new/include/linux/pnp.h	2007-12-04 09:09:40.000000000 +0800
@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@
 #include <linux/errno.h>
 #include <linux/mod_devicetable.h>
 
-#define PNP_MAX_PORT		24
+#define PNP_MAX_PORT		128
 #define PNP_MAX_MEM		12
 #define PNP_MAX_IRQ		2
 #define PNP_MAX_DMA		2
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/