On Wednesday, June 6, 2007 4:24 pm Justin Piszcz wrote:
> > The mem= approach though looks slightly off, but I haven't looked
> > at x86_64's mem= handling to see why. From a high level though,
> > adjusting end_pfn is the right thing to do, since theoretically
> > mem= could choose to make holes in your low memory and keep your
> > high memory in the allocation pools (though it's not generally
> > implemented this way).
> >
> > Jesse
>
> Ahh, ok! Sounds great, I will keep running the kernel with your
> patch without mem= and let you know if I see any issues.
>
> Chances of getting this into 2.6.22-rc5?
I'm not sure it's appropriate for -rc5 since it mucks around with some
early boot ordering, but I'll leave that to Andi, since it does address
some real bugs people have been seeing.
Can we add your "Tested-by: Justin Piszcz <[email protected]>" to
the patch? :)
Thanks,
Jesse
-
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]
