>> I clarified the message and added a line telling the user to have
>> a look at linux/include/asm-i386/page.h, if he wants more physical
>> RAM to be supported. And I also added three lines to
>> include/asm-i386/page.h explaining that the per process virtual
>> mem will shrink, if the PAGE_OFFSET is decreased.
> So now the user is both confused and scared by the message. The
> right fix is to put back Ingo's memory size patch but change it to
> a menu option of 1Gig, 2Gig , 3Gig or similar as 2.0.37pre does
I submitted a patch a while back that provided a set of options
allowing this to be set from 0.75G to 3G in 0.25G steps (using a
'choice' statement with 1G as the default), and I still believe this
to be the best method and granularity.
The patch apparently missed changing arch/i386/vmlinux.lds and wasn't
applied as a result, but as I stated in a post at the time, I don't
know the language the said file is written in, so can hardly expect to
patch it appropriately......
Am I right in thinking that Ingo's patch basically expanded this patch
to edit the above file as well?
Best wishes from Riley.
--- * ftp://ps.cus.umist.ac.uk/pub/rhw/Linux * http://ps.cus.umist.ac.uk/~rhw/kernel.versions.html
- 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/