From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263426AbTJOPcY (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Oct 2003 11:32:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263427AbTJOPcY (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Oct 2003 11:32:24 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:4105 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263426AbTJOPcX (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Oct 2003 11:32:23 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 16:32:12 +0100 From: Dave Jones To: Pavel Machek Cc: William Lee Irwin III , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: mem=16MB laptop testing Message-ID: <20031015153212.GA5197@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Dave Jones , Pavel Machek , William Lee Irwin III , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20031014105514.GH765@holomorphy.com> <20031014045614.22ea9c4b.akpm@osdl.org> <20031015121208.GA692@elf.ucw.cz> <20031015125109.GQ16158@holomorphy.com> <20031015132054.GA840@elf.ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031015132054.GA840@elf.ucw.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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