[lkml]   [2000]   [Nov]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Value of TASK_UNMAPPED_SIZE on 2.4


    On Sat, 4 Nov 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:

    > On Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 01:09:42AM +0000, Julian Anastasov wrote:
    > > Something like the attached old patch for 2.2. It is very
    > It's not ok for 64bit archs.

    Agreed. I see very different definitions for TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE
    and ELF_ET_DYN_BASE in all archs and I'm not a guru to make this patch
    for all archs but everyone can see the idea. May be the signed int max
    value is not suitable for users that need large brk allocations with
    more than 2GB on 32bit, i.e. cur_task_unmapped_base is enough. Using
    machines with this RAM size and more are already a common practice but
    I'm not sure if this feature is so useful compared to the difficulties
    to implement it for all archs.

    > Andrea


    Julian Anastasov <>

    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 12:45    [W:0.023 / U:173.328 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site