[lkml]   [2003]   [Oct]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: mem=16MB laptop testing
    On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 03:20:54PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:

    > Do you want to say that calculation is different, already? We should
    > probably make 2.5 version match 2.4 version, that's what users
    > expect. Who changed it and why?

    More a case of who didn't change it (in 2.6 at least).
    This routine was identical until rev 1.42 of 2.4 when hch changed it to how
    it stands today, with the comment...

    [PATCH] memsetup fixes (again)

    The mem= fixes from Red Hat's tree had a small bug:
    if mem= was not actually used with the additional features, but
    int plain old way, is used the value as the size of memory it
    wants, not the upper limit. The problem with this is that there
    is a small difference due to memory holes.

    I had one report of a person using mem= to reduce memory size for
    a broken i386 chipset thaty only supports 64MB cached and the rest
    as mtd/slram device for swap. I got broken as the boundaries changed.

    Assuming this patch is correct, it needs forward porting to 2.6


    Dave Jones
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:49    [W:0.047 / U:6.368 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site