[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:0.020 / U:104.920 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site