[lkml]   [1998]   [Oct]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Breaking the 64MB barrier
    "B. James Phillippe" <> writes:
    | I am aware that passing the "mem=XX" option in LILO overcomes this
    | problem; this is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with what I'm
    | about to ask (for you rapid-reply "RTFM" people).
    | The question is this: I had a debate with someone about the 64MB+
    | memory issue with Linux. Their position is that it's a bug in the kernel,
    | and mine was that it was an x86 BIOS limitation. I have two questions:
    | 1.) who's right? 2.) How is it that Microsoft is able to deal with this
    | without a bootloader option, and we can't? Seems this is a sizeable flaw
    | (regardless of the cause) for systems where the memory amount may be
    | changed dynamically. If this is indeed a kernel limitation, what would be
    | required to get past it?

    Microsoft uses an extended BIOS call to get the amount of memory, as
    will, from what I understand, linux kernel 2.0.36 and kernels
    2.1.x. In other words it's a done deal.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:45    [W:0.018 / U:35.084 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site