Re: [PATCH] [RFC] be more verbose when probing EDD

> Those don't live in an area of memory which is hard-limited to 32K.

Why not 64k?

Ok, that's a different argument than before. Ok. Although it's
only a few bytes. 

I would lobby for any message at least contain the suggestion to try
edd=off. That could save users a lot of time.

-Andi
--
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] [RFC] be more verbose when probing EDD
  - From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>

References:
- [PATCH] [RFC] be more verbose when probing EDD
  - From: [email protected]
- Re: [PATCH] [RFC] be more verbose when probing EDD
  - From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] [RFC] be more verbose when probing EDD
  - From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] [RFC] be more verbose when probing EDD
  - From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: compat_sys_times() bogus until jiffies >= 0.
Next by Date: [PATCH] eCryptfs: Change the type of cipher_code from u16 to u8
Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] be more verbose when probing EDD
Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] be more verbose when probing EDD
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[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]