From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263656AbUEWVzY (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 May 2004 17:55:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263661AbUEWVzY (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 May 2004 17:55:24 -0400 Received: from web90008.mail.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.94.66]:3992 "HELO web90008.mail.scd.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S263656AbUEWVzU (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 May 2004 17:55:20 -0400 Message-ID: <20040523215519.48712.qmail@web90008.mail.scd.yahoo.com> Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 14:55:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Phy Prabab Subject: Re: 4g/4g for 2.6.6 To: Linus Torvalds Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org So do I understand this correctly, in 2.6.7(+) it will no longer be necessary to have the 4g patches? I will be able to get 4g/process with the going forward kernels? Thank you for your time. Phy --- Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Sun, 23 May 2004, Phy Prabab wrote: > > > > I have been researching the 4g patches for > kernels. > > Seems there was a rift between people over this. > Is > > there any plan to resume publishing 4g patches for > > developing kernels? > > Quite frankly, a number of us are hoping that we can > make them > unnecessary. The cost of the 4g/4g split is > absolutely _huge_ on some > things, including basic stuff like kernel compiles. > > The only valid reason for the 4g split is that the > VM doesn't always > behave well with huge amounts of highmem. The > anonvma stuff in 2.6.7-pre1 > is hoped to make that much less of an issue. > > Personally, if we never need to merge 4g for real, > I'll be really really > happy. I see it as a huge ugly hack. > > Linus __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Domains – Claim yours for only $14.70/year http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer