From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 20:31:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 20:31:37 -0500 Received: from quechua.inka.de ([212.227.14.2]:1637 "EHLO mail.inka.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 20:31:25 -0500 From: Bernd Eckenfels To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Request: increase in PCI bus limit Message-Id: Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 02:31:25 +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In article <200101310008.f0V08Wv23250@localhost.localdomain> you wrote: > 256, in later 2.4.* kernel releases? That would allow this customer to > work with an unpatched kernel, at the cost of an additional 3.5 kB of > variables in the kernel. Don't think this is fairly common. So especially since I consider that kind of hardware (what is it) to require finetuning ("enterprise kernel") anyway, there is no real gain out of it, as long as the structure is not dynamically. Is that some kind of file server or masspar system? Intel? Greetings Bernd - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/