| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <a2ebde260608290916o696bf5d6odbca254af079f2a8@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 00:16:27 +0800 From: "Dong Feng" <middle.fengdong@...il.com> To: "Christoph Lameter" <clameter@....com> Cc: "Jan Engelhardt" <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>, "Andi Kleen" <ak@...e.de>, "Nick Piggin" <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>, "Arjan van de Ven" <arjan@...radead.org>, "Paul Mackerras" <paulus@...ba.org>, "David Howells" <dhowells@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: The 3G (or nG) Kernel Memory Space Offset No, please do not get me wrong. Or perhaps please tolerate my poor English. My intention is just trying to understand whether there is an absolute rationality for a design choice or it just has to have a choice and the choice can be made arbitrarily. Sorry again if my English cause any misunderstanding. 2006/8/30, Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>: > On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Dong Feng wrote: > > > Or perhaps this offset is just some personal favor. Say if the first > > kernel designer decided to locate kernel at 2-3G linear address, then > > 2G offset would have appeared in code. Is this the case? > > Well this is the second time that you suggest that the reason for > technical decisions have to do with personal favors. Are you trying to > provoke us into answering your question? > > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists