[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <496F6DFC.90006@zytor.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 09:10:20 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: simplify HIGHMEM-related Kconfig entries
Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>
>>> No highmem - No highmem, no PAE
>>> HIGHMEM4G - Highmem, no PAE
>>> HIGHMEM64G - Highmem, PAE
>>>
>>> So X86_PAE and HIGHMEM4G is a bit of a contradiction. I haven't looked
>>> at the logic in detail, or remember offhand if there have been any
>>> weakening of the definitions above; e.g. someone could have implemented
>>> a way to do PAE without highmem, to get access to the NX bits.
>> Exactly - .23 made PAE an independently selectable option (in
>> particular, the no-highmem+PAE combination is now valid), but I can't
>> see why it added the !HIGHMEM4G dependency.
>
> There's no deep reason, it just has never really been tested that way. I
> think we should try it.
If so, what would be the difference between HIGHMEM4G and HIGHMEM64G in
that case at all?
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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