Re: resource.c iotable_size too small (fwd)

Doug Ledford (
Tue, 15 Apr 1997 01:12:47 -0500

> Hi,
> On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, Dan Hollis wrote:
> > I increased the size to 80, which fixed the problem. From what I can
> > figure, this takes only 256 more bytes in the kernel (assuming the extra
> > iotable port space is unused). Is there any problem with making this
> > standard?
> Everytime my memory-challenged test-target hears "...more bytes in the
> kernel" it makes a quiet "Ekk" sound...:)
> The current limit is on the low-side for systems with terminal servers.

Actually, not really. It's only on the low side if your serial io ports are registered one at a time. One the other hand, if you have, say, 192 serial ports on a few intelligent cards, then you only end up with three io region requests (in my particular case) and no problems. I think that rather few systems out there are going to add enough devices that fall under this "Added one at a time" category to warrant such a change in the kernel. The existing table is really overkill for the typical user system and only becomes a problem on servers that use certain, specific brands/make of hardware.

* Doug Ledford                      *   Unix, Novell, Dos, Windows 3.x,     *
*    873-DIAL  *     WfW, Windows 95 & NT Technician   *
*   PPP access $14.95/month         *****************************************
*   Springfield, MO and surrounding * Usenet news, e-mail and shell account.*
*   communities.  Sign-up online at * Web page creation and hosting, other  *
*   873-9000 V.34                   * services available, call for info.    *