[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <49708423.76E4.0078.0@novell.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 11:57:07 +0000
From: "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@...ell.com>
To: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: <tglx@...utronix.de>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: simplify HIGHMEM-related Kconfig entries
>>> "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> 15.01.09 18:10 >>>
>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?
For example being able to select the DMADEVICES config option.
Jan
--
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