On Friday 16 February 2007 19:40, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 12:02:08PM -0500, Jason Lunz wrote:
> > I agree - I have only a vague idea about what uml_reserved means.
>
> This is ancient code - after a quick look through it, I think what is
> happening is this:
> Early in boot
On Friday 16 February 2007 18:02, Jason Lunz wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 08:29:28PM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > The following could be a suggestion, if max_low_pfn is not used between
> > the old and the new moment of assignment (and it seems it is not). This
> > is just an idea however:
>
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 12:02:08PM -0500, Jason Lunz wrote:
> I agree - I have only a vague idea about what uml_reserved means.
This is ancient code - after a quick look through it, I think what is
happening is this:
Early in boot, there are both libc and kernel (bootmem) memory
allocation
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 08:29:28PM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> The following could be a suggestion, if max_low_pfn is not used between the
> old and the new moment of assignment (and it seems it is not). This is just
> an idea however:
>
> mem_init:
>
> -max_low_pfn = ...
> /*
On Thursday 15 February 2007 18:09, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 11:00:01AM -0500, Jason Lunz wrote:
> > Permit lvm to create logical volumes without crashing UML.
>
> Thanks, this is in my tree.
Hmm, this seems not a _correct_ fix - at least it will be buggy with high
memory (which
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 11:00:01AM -0500, Jason Lunz wrote:
> Permit lvm to create logical volumes without crashing UML.
Thanks, this is in my tree.
Jeff
--
Work email - jdike at linux dot intel dot com
---
