linux-kernel - Re: Regression with commit f9cde5f in 2.6.30-gitX

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:	Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:45:31 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>
cc:	Gary Hade <garyhade@...ibm.com>,
	Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@...nel.org>,
	Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Regression with commit f9cde5f in 2.6.30-gitX

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > I was thinking 32 but 64 would be better if there aren't any
> > downsides elsewhere of making the array that big.
> 
> Just chatting with Len about this; apparently the PNPACPI layer ran
> into something similar awhile back, and they had to go to a variable
> sized list of resources, due to weird machines with huge numbers of
> resources.  Matthew says he's got an idea about how to fix this up; if
> that doesn't work out I'll see about making the bus resource array into
> a list instead.

Can we just bring the limit check back and increase the number for now
until folks come up with a better solution ?

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/