| 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, 13 Apr 2007 12:18:43 -0600 From: Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com> To: Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org> Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...hat.com>, Rudolf Marek <r.marek@...embler.cz>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lm-sensors@...sensors.org Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] Could the k8temp driver be interfering with ACPI? On Friday 02 March 2007 07:03, Jean Delvare wrote: > ... The primary issue is the concurrent access > to resources, which cause lots of trouble which are hard to investigate. > If ACPI reserves the ports, then the SMBus or hardware monitoring > drivers (or any other conflicting driver) will cleanly fail to load, > which would be a move in the right direction. ... > > So, can ACPI actually reserve the ports it accesses? Sorry to join this discussion so late. ACPI tells us the resources used by devices. Today, we don't reserve ACPI resources until a driver claims a device. PCI does some sort of reservation up front, before the driver claims devices. Conceptually, I think ACPI should do the same thing, and I don't think it's that hard to do. But breaking things like lmsensors would make the transition painful. Bjorn - 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