Re: New pre-2.0.31 patches..

Erik Andersen (
Tue, 5 Aug 1997 12:34:14 -0600 (MDT)

Um. How about we include the patch which helps avoid the need to specify
mem="XXX" for most people, and the few machines that do not work (i.e.
have broken BIOSs) get to specify mem="XXX" just like before. The need
of many is greater than the need of few, as long as few are still
accomodated. I don't see how leaving out the patch helps anything.
Broken BIOSs will still (as before) require that people specify memory
size. This patch just reduces the population that needs to add the
additional args to the kernel. The guy who got 1meg instead of 64megs
detected had to add kernel command line args before the patch also, right?


Erik B. Andersen   Web: 
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--

On Tue, 5 Aug 1997, Dr. Werner Fink wrote:

> > > > I'm curious; what other systems does it break? I don't use lma's > > memory patch myself (having a far superior one that I authored), > > but since the largest difference between his and mine is that he > > uses int15,ah=c7, it shouldn't be failing on other systems. > > few days ago ther was a mail on this list ... only 1M detected of > 64M. Some BIOS do not work proper for this detection code. > > Werner >