Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2011 18:55:00 +0100
From: Stuart Henderson s...@spacehopper.org
On 2011/10/02 07:38, Barbier, Jason wrote:
3. What's the point in keeping sys/arch/i386/i386/pmapae.c? Are there any
plans for re-enabling PAE support?
PAE will always be needed for 32bit processors as I
Thank you all who replied!
2011/10/2 Ted Unangst t...@tedunangst.com:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011, Vadim Zhukov wrote:
Hello all.
After some talks on opennet.ru I dived into the sys/uvm/ and other
places, having a few more or less tech-nical questions raised now. Can
anybody answer them?
Very
3. What's the point in keeping sys/arch/i386/i386/pmapae.c? Are there any
plans for re-enabling PAE support?
PAE will always be needed for 32bit processors as I understand it. There are
some 32bit processors out there that the
boards will allow for more than 4 gigs of ram But you will need PAE to
On 2011/10/02 07:38, Barbier, Jason wrote:
3. What's the point in keeping sys/arch/i386/i386/pmapae.c? Are there any
plans for re-enabling PAE support?
PAE will always be needed for 32bit processors as I understand it. There are
some 32bit processors out there that the
boards will allow for
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011, Vadim Zhukov wrote:
Hello all.
After some talks on opennet.ru I dived into the sys/uvm/ and other
places, having a few more or less tech-nical questions raised now. Can
anybody answer them?
Very nice.
1. amap_share_protect() in sys/uvm/uvm_amap.c is totally unused,
Hello all.
After some talks on opennet.ru I dived into the sys/uvm/ and other
places, having a few more or less tech-nical questions raised now. Can
anybody answer them?
1. amap_share_protect() in sys/uvm/uvm_amap.c is totally unused, is there
any point for keeping it around?
2. Am I right
