On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 05:19:19PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006, Dave Hansen wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 16:43 +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> >>Is this a bit clearer? It's built and boot tested on one ppc64 machine. I
> >>am having trouble finding a ppc64 machine that *has* memory holes to be
> >>100% sure it's ok.
> >
> >Yeah, it looks that way. If you need a machine, see Mike Kravetz. I
> >think he was working on a way to automate creating memory holes.
> >
>
> Will do. If there is an automatic way of creating holes, I'll write it
> into the current "compare two running kernels" testing script.
I don't realy have an automatic way to create holes. Just turns out that
the system I was working with was good at creating them itself.
I've sliced and diced (made lots of partitioning changes) the system
recently and am still working on getting everything working right.
When I get everything working again, I'll give the patch set a try.
--
Mike
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
