From: Chris Holvenstot <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Rene Herman <email@example.com>
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com,
Andrew Morton <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: pnpacpi : exceeded the max number of IO resources
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:51:20 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1196722280.24704.11.camel@localhost> (raw)
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?
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
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)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-12-03 22:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-11-30 13:14 pnpacpi : exceeded the max number of IO resources Chris Holvenstot
2007-11-30 22:22 ` Rene Herman
2007-12-03 17:02 ` Rene Herman
2007-12-03 22:51 ` Chris Holvenstot [this message]
2007-12-04 0:55 ` Shaohua Li
2007-12-04 1:15 ` Dave Young
2007-12-05 20:39 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2007-12-19 3:07 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2008-01-09 3:50 ` Len Brown
2008-01-09 9:34 ` Frans Pop
2008-01-09 14:47 ` Rene Herman
2008-01-16 5:55 ` Dave Young
2008-01-16 8:00 ` Rene Herman
2008-01-16 13:04 ` Rene Herman
2008-01-19 11:03 ` Frans Pop
2008-01-19 18:38 ` Bjorn Helgaas
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2007-11-29 9:11 Dave Young
2007-11-30 1:18 ` Dave Young
2007-11-30 2:21 ` Zhao Yakui
2007-11-30 6:40 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2007-11-30 8:14 ` Zhao Yakui
2007-11-30 2:18 ` Rene Herman
2007-11-30 2:32 ` Shaohua Li
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).