On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, Timur Tabi wrote:
> ** Reply to message from Christopher Neufeld <firstname.lastname@example.org> on Tue, 30
> Jan 2001 16:08:32 -0800
> > Would it be possible to bump it up to 128, or even
> > 256, in later 2.4.* kernel releases? That would allow this customer to
> > work with an unpatched kernel, at the cost of an additional 3.5 kB of
> > variables in the kernel.
> I don't think that's going to happen. If we did this for your obscure system,
> then we'd have to do it for every obscure system, and before you know it, the
> kernel is 200KB larger.
> Besides, why is your client afraid of patched kernels? It sounds like a very
> odd request from someone with a linuxcare.com email address. I would think that
> you'd WANT to provide patched kernels so that the customer can keep paying you
> (until they learn how to use a text editor, at which point they can patch the
> kernel themselves!!!)
Should there not at least be some bounds checking on this table, though?!
If it's only built at boot time, it's not performance critical. Maybe at a
later date it could even expand (or shrink, on small PCs??) the table as
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 31 2001 - 21:00:38 EST