Re: New pre-2.0.31 patches..

Aaron Ucko (
06 Aug 1997 11:12:06 -0500

Rainer Keller <> writes:

> Yes, and no, I'd say, being the guy who got 1meg ,-}}
> Well, I agree with you, the "need of many is greater than the need of
> few" ! And no: I didn't have to set memory size with kernel
> parameter...
> Sure, I'll have to use "mem=XXX", so will others... I don't have a
> problem with that, but I believe it might be confusing for others, since
> it's hard to acually spot the problem when BOOTING, since the kernel
> goes on initializing - but with 1 MB of mem, this is a rather problem.
> Alan also was of the oppinion to have it dropped on 2.0.xx any of the memory size determination calls ever
_overestimate_ total memory? If not, it would make sense to try all
of them and use the maximum value we get; that shouldn't force anybody
to add "mem=XXX" to their setup.

Aaron M. Ucko ( | For Geek Code, PGP public key, and other info,
finger | "Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous.
Do not attempt it in your home." -- T. Pratchett & N. Gaiman, _Good Omens_