linux-kernel - Re: 4.7 regression: ACPI: No IRQ available for PCI Interrupt Link [LNKD]. Try pci=noacpi or acpi=off

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]

Date:   Fri, 30 Sep 2016 23:04:23 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Ondrej Zary <linux@...nbow-software.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, wim@....tudelft.nl,
        ravikanth.nalla@....com
Subject: Re: 4.7 regression: ACPI: No IRQ available for PCI Interrupt Link
 [LNKD]. Try pci=noacpi or acpi=off

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 10:24 PM, Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> On 9/30/2016 3:39 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> how do we feel about increasing the ISA IRQ range to 256 so that
>>> > we are safe for all SCI interrupts?
>> I'm not sure how this is related to the problem at hand.  Care to elaborate?
>>
>
> Sure, let me explain.
>

[cut]

>
> I hope it makes sense now. I tend to skip details sometimes. Feel free to
> send more questions.

Thanks for the information!

IIUC, basically, what you are proposing would be to restore the old
penalizing method for IRQs in the 0-255 range and use the new approach
for the rest, right?

What's the drawback, if any?

Thanks,
Rafael