Messages in this thread |  | | | From | (H. Peter Anvin) | | Subject | Re: Breaking the 64MB barrier | | Date | 16 Oct 1998 15:33:03 GMT |
| |
Followup to: <Pine.LNX.3.96.981015173635.21405A-100000@earth.terran.org> By author: "B. James Phillippe" <bryan@terran.org> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > 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.
-hpa -- PGP: 2047/2A960705 BA 03 D3 2C 14 A8 A8 BD 1E DF FE 69 EE 35 BD 74 See http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/ for web page and full PGP public key I am Bahá'í -- ask me about it or see http://www.bahai.org/ "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 majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |