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: <1196729713.13969.1.camel@sli10-desk.sh.intel.com>
Date:	Tue, 04 Dec 2007 08:55:13 +0800
From:	Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>
To:	Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl>
Cc:	yakui.zhao@...el.com, Chris Holvenstot <cholvenstot@...cast.net>,
	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?
Revert the warning doesn't make any sense. I'd suggest changing the IO
resources number bigger till Thomas's patch in.

Shaohua
--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ