On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Huang Ying <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Do you have time to try the patch attached with the mail? > acpi_nvs.patch should go first. I'm sure these patches make the messages go away, but I think this is the wrong way to fix the problem. We mark things "busy" in the resource trees as a mutual exclusion mechanism -- normally when a driver claims a resource and nothing else should be allowed to touch it. e820_reserve_resources() marks everything (except "reserved" regions) as busy. That probably makes sense for available RAM, since RAM is allocated and managed via other mechanisms. But I think it's wrong in this case because e820 is not a driver that is using the ACPI NVS region. In this case, we have an ACPI NVS region, and the APEI code is essentially a driver for some registers that reside there. APEI is the entity that manages those registers, and it needs to enforce mutual exclusion so nobody else touches them behind its back, so I think it makes sense for it to request the register regions and mark them busy. My proposal is to change e820 so it either leaves ACPI NVS out of the iomem_resource tree or puts it in but leaves it non-busy. Bjorn -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
