[lkml]   [1998]   [Oct]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Breaking the 64MB barrier
Followup to:  <>
By author: "B. James Phillippe" <>
In newsgroup:
> Greetings,
> 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?

This problem is fixed in 2.1 and late 2.0 kernels.

PGP: 2047/2A960705 BA 03 D3 2C 14 A8 A8 BD 1E DF FE 69 EE 35 BD 74
See for web page and full PGP public key
I am Bahá'í -- ask me about it or see
"To love another person is to see the face of God." -- Les Misérables

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:0.036 / U:2.940 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site