From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932587AbWAJU0X (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jan 2006 15:26:23 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932335AbWAJU0X (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jan 2006 15:26:23 -0500 Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:28986 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932592AbWAJU0W (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jan 2006 15:26:22 -0500 Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 21:28:20 +0100 From: Jens Axboe To: Bernd Eckenfels Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2G memory split Message-ID: <20060110202819.GJ3389@suse.de> References: <43C3E9C2.1000309@rtr.ca> <20060110194200.GD3389@suse.de> <20060110201747.GA26433@lina.inka.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060110201747.GA26433@lina.inka.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 10 2006, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: > On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 08:42:00PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote: > > Hmm I thought it was obvious with the description in paranthesis after > > the option. Basically the option is just an optimized default for 1GB of > > RAM, like the 2G option is tailored for 2GB of low mem on a 2GB machine. > > The description was (for full 1Gb Low Memory) and not (optimized for 1GB > physical RAM) which would be more obvious, yes. However the text could still > explain the consequences. To me the former is clearer, it tells you that you have one full gig of low memory. But maybe that's just me. -- Jens Axboe