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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 20:24:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> To: Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com> cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, David Witbrodt <dawitbro@...global.net>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Kernel Testers <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.27-rc5: System boot regression caused by commit a2bd7274b47124d2fc4dfdb8c0591f545ba749dd On Fri, 29 Aug 2008, Yinghai Lu wrote: > > we need to use insert_resource_split_to_fit instead... > > otherwise __request_region will not be happy. Are you really really sure? Try just removing the IORESOURCE_BUSY. As mentioned, if we expect the PCI BAR's to work with the e820 resources, then BUSY really is simply not right any more. Not that I think it should matter either.. The ones that are added _early_ should be IORESOURCE_BUSY (ie the ones that cover RAM), but the others we now expect to nest with PCI BARs. But since we add them after we have parsed the BAR's, I don't even see why the BUSY bit should even matter - we've already added the fixed BARs, and any newly allocated non-fixed ones shouldn't be allocated in e820 areas _regardless_ of whether the BUSY bit is set or not. So pls explain why it matters? Linus -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists