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]

Message-Id: <1196722280.24704.11.camel@localhost>
Date:	Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:51:20 -0600
From:	Chris Holvenstot <cholvenstot@...cast.net>
To:	Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl>
Cc:	yakui.zhao@...el.com, shaohua.li@...el.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hidave.darkstar@...il.com,
	bjorn.helgaas@...com, trenn@...e.de, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Subject: Re: pnpacpi : exceeded the max number of IO resources


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?
> 
> Rene.
> 

Rene - 

Thanks for the follow up - from my perspective now that I know that the
condition that caused the warning messages has been with us for some
time, and that previously the messages were suppressed it really does
not make that much difference to me if the warnings are reverted or not.

So I guess that I vote for doing whatever is best for the developer.
After all they are the ones doing the heavy lifting. If the warning
message is able to provide some insight into the problem so much the
better.

At this point my goal is just to learn enough to be an asset as a tester
instead of a net loss (defined as someone whose efforts cost the team
more man-hours than their contribution is worth)

Chris

--
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/