Re: 1GB/2GB/3GB User Space Splitting Patch 2.6.8.1 (PSEUDO SPAM)

[jmerkey]

> You're years late to this game. It's been thought about and the
> consensus (which I disagreed with) was to reject virtualspace pressure
> related changes of this kind for 32-bit platforms in favor of refusing
> to support 32-bit platforms and/or workloads requiring them.
> 

This has nothing to do with only having 1GB of kernel address 
space and not enough virtual space to load a large swath of drivers
or support modules loading reentrantly.  It's a little difficult to quantify
 how much kernel address space will be needed when you don't
know if a full configuration will fit into it.  The fact people use this 
patch at all is **EVIDENCE THAT THERE ALREADY IS A PROBLEM**
with limiting kernel address space to 1GB.  And who the hell cares about 
a mouldy, antiquated ABI spec modeled after 1970 Unix technology anyway?  It 
should be another option for executable formats.   All this ABI compatibility huey 
is some Intel/SCO pipe dream for supporting applications across multiple Unix 
platforms anyway.  If it doesn't run on Linux, who the hell cares?

:-)

Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/