Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: bigphysarea in 2.2 | Date | Tue, 14 Apr 1998 14:32:05 -0600 | From | Stephen Williams <> |
| |
That clinches it. I have a 2.1.85 port of the patch already available in ftp://ftp.picturel.com/pub/source/bigphys-2.1.85.patch. I will in the next few days verify it with the very latest 2.1 kernel (on an alpha). Anyone other tests from others would be appreciated.
Who has the access and authority to accept/reject a patch into the kernel source tree?
H.H.vanRiel@fys.ruu.nl said: > I think we _do_ need bigphysarea in the kernel. There are some guys in > Italy that use 128M boxes, with 100M framegrabber buffer!!!
> We don't want to modify the VM system to support these extreme cases > (performance), but we _do_ want to support them...
> IMHO, bigphysarea is the way to go for extreme systems.
-- Steve Williams "The woods are lovely, dark and deep. steve@icarus.com But I have promises to keep, steve@picturel.com and lines to code before I sleep, http://www.picturel.com And lines to code before I sleep."
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
| |