[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:0.027 / U:3.060 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site