Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1998-10,: Re: x86 memsize > 1Gb patches.

# Re: x86 memsize > 1Gb patches.

Pavel Machek (pavel@elf.ucw.cz)
Fri, 13 Mar 1998 13:56:08 +0100

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Sydney Alsobrook: "/proc/sys/kernel/domainname source"
- Previous message: Jim Bray: "2.1.90-[12]: Possible ip/ppp routing problem"
- In reply to: David Woodhouse: "x86 memsize > 1Gb patches."
- Next in thread: Michael Elizabeth Chastain: "Re: x86 memsize > 1Gb patches."

Hi!

> Functions such as phys_to_virt et. al. are going to be horribly broken when we
> compile modules with a different CONFIG_MAX_MEMSIZE to the kernel we're using.
> I _know_ that the correct answer might be "user education", but we're not
> designing an Alpha CPU here.

Right answer is not to make code bigger/slower just because users are
stupid. Answer might be to teach module stuff about config options,
and teach it that some options must be equal in kernel and in module
to load it (CONFIG_SMP, CONFIG_MAX_MEMSIZE, ...)

Pavel

    --
    I'm really pavel@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz. 	   Pavel
    Look at http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/ ;-).

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu

- Next message: Sydney Alsobrook: "/proc/sys/kernel/domainname source"
- Previous message: Jim Bray: "2.1.90-[12]: Possible ip/ppp routing problem"
- In reply to: David Woodhouse: "x86 memsize > 1Gb patches."
- Next in thread: Michael Elizabeth Chastain: "Re: x86 memsize > 1Gb patches."