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  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:	Fri, 29 Aug 2008 20:24:52 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <>
To:	Yinghai Lu <>
cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
	Jeff Garzik <>, Tejun Heo <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>,
	David Witbrodt <>,
	Andrew Morton <>,
	Kernel Testers <>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.27-rc5: System boot regression caused by commit

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?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists