From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753747AbXLCRMY (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Dec 2007 12:12:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751358AbXLCRMK (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Dec 2007 12:12:10 -0500 Received: from smtpq1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl ([213.51.146.200]:52489 "EHLO smtpq1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751091AbXLCRMI (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Dec 2007 12:12:08 -0500 Message-ID: <475436A3.90906@keyaccess.nl> Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 18:02:27 +0100 From: Rene Herman User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: yakui.zhao@intel.com, shaohua.li@intel.com CC: Chris Holvenstot , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hidave.darkstar@gmail.com, bjorn.helgaas@hp.com, trenn@suse.de, Andrew Morton Subject: Re: pnpacpi : exceeded the max number of IO resources References: <1196428488.7066.6.camel@localhost> <47508D3C.9050507@keyaccess.nl> In-Reply-To: <47508D3C.9050507@keyaccess.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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? Rene.