From: Frans Pop <email@example.com>
To: Len Brown <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com,
firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org,
Subject: Re: pnpacpi : exceeded the max number of IO resources
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 10:34:09 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <E1JCXK5-0002GHemail@example.com> (raw)
Len Brown wrote:
>> > 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?
> No. I don't think hiding this issue again is a good idea.
> I'd rather live with people complaining about an addition dmesg line.
We're not talking about "a" additional line. In my case  we're talking
about 22 (!) additional identical lines.
Not fixing this before 2.6.24 seems completely inconsistent:
- either this is a real bug and the ERR level message is correct, in which
case the limits should be increased;
- or hitting the limits is harmless and the message should be changed to
It is great to hear that the memory allocation will become dynamic in the
future and maybe that could just justify your standpoint, but having the
messages is damn ugly and alarming from a user point of view.
Please keep in mind that depending on distro release schedules, 2.6.24 could
live for quite a bit longer than just the period needed to release 2.6.25
(if that is when the dynamic allocation will be implemented).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-01-09 9:34 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
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 [this message]
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).