Re: Breaking the 64MB barrier
Gary L. Hennigan (glhenni@cs.sandia.gov)
16 Oct 1998 08:47:42 -0600
"B. James Phillippe" <bryan@terran.org> writes:
| I am aware that passing the "mem=XX" option in LILO overcomes this
| problem; this is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with what I'm
| about to ask (for you rapid-reply "RTFM" people).
|
| The question is this: I had a debate with someone about the 64MB+
| memory issue with Linux. Their position is that it's a bug in the kernel,
| and mine was that it was an x86 BIOS limitation. I have two questions:
| 1.) who's right? 2.) How is it that Microsoft is able to deal with this
| without a bootloader option, and we can't? Seems this is a sizeable flaw
| (regardless of the cause) for systems where the memory amount may be
| changed dynamically. If this is indeed a kernel limitation, what would be
| required to get past it?
Microsoft uses an extended BIOS call to get the amount of memory, as
will, from what I understand, linux kernel 2.0.36 and kernels
2.1.x. In other words it's a done deal.
Gary
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/