Jesper Juhl wrote:
Would it make sense to make it 1024 everywhere (and maybe move it out of arch specific files and just set it in one central place) ?
I would agree with that, *BUT* the boot protocol on each architecture need to be consistent.
At the very least, though, i386 and x86-64 need to be changed together, since they use the same bootstrap.
-hpa - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] Re: THE LINUX/I386 BOOT PROTOCOL - Breaking the 256 limit
- From: Georg Lippold <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] Re: THE LINUX/I386 BOOT PROTOCOL - Breaking the 256 limit
- From: Alon Bar-Lev <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] Re: THE LINUX/I386 BOOT PROTOCOL - Breaking the 256 limit
- References:
- Re: THE LINUX/I386 BOOT PROTOCOL - Breaking the 256 limit
- From: Georg Lippold <[email protected]>
- [PATCH] Re: THE LINUX/I386 BOOT PROTOCOL - Breaking the 256 limit
- From: Georg Lippold <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] Re: THE LINUX/I386 BOOT PROTOCOL - Breaking the 256 limit
- From: Jesper Juhl <[email protected]>
- Re: THE LINUX/I386 BOOT PROTOCOL - Breaking the 256 limit
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH2 6/6] isicom: More whitespaces and coding style
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH2 4/6] isicom: Pci probing added
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] Re: THE LINUX/I386 BOOT PROTOCOL - Breaking the 256 limit
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] Re: THE LINUX/I386 BOOT PROTOCOL - Breaking the 256 limit
- Index(es):
 |