Re: mem=16MB laptop testing

[Dave Jones]

On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 03:20:54PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:

 > Do you want to say that calculation is different, already? We should
 > probably make 2.5 version match 2.4 version, that's what users
 > expect. Who changed it and why?

More a case of who didn't change it (in 2.6 at least).
This routine was identical until rev 1.42 of 2.4 when hch changed it to how
it stands today, with the comment...

[PATCH] memsetup fixes (again)

The mem= fixes from Red Hat's tree had a small bug:
if mem= was not actually used with the additional features, but
int plain old way, is used the value as the size of memory it
wants, not the upper limit.  The problem with this is that there
is a small difference due to memory holes.
				    
I had one report of a person using mem= to reduce memory size for
a broken i386 chipset thaty only supports 64MB cached and the rest
as mtd/slram device for swap.  I got broken as the boundaries changed.


Assuming this patch is correct, it needs forward porting to 2.6

		Dave

-- 
 Dave Jones     http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
-
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/