| 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, 24 Jul 2009 10:04:58 +0530 From: David John <davidjon@...ontk.org> To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> CC: Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org> Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.31-rc4: strange change in iomem allocation On 07/23/2009 09:59 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> Don't worry about the new warning. >> >> It is in fact _normal_ to see a number of warnings about PnP resources >> "could not be reserved" > > In fact, I notice that you had them even before, eg: > > system 00:00: iomem range 0x0-0x9ffff could not be reserved > system 00:00: iomem range 0xe0000-0xfffff could not be reserved > system 00:00: iomem range 0x100000-0x7e7fffff could not be reserved > > which are about exactly the same thing - e820 RAM reservations take > precedence over the PnP ones. > > So the only new thing is that we claim the APIC thing to that category > too. > If the kernel knows that those ranges have already been reserved, can't the PnP messages be suppressed? I used to think these were errors as well (because of some BIOS misbehaviour) until I checked the code... -- 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