From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263574AbUEWUc3 (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 May 2004 16:32:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263580AbUEWUc2 (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 May 2004 16:32:28 -0400 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:10908 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263574AbUEWUcW (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 May 2004 16:32:22 -0400 Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 13:32:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Phy Prabab cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 4g/4g for 2.6.6 In-Reply-To: <20040523194302.81454.qmail@web90007.mail.scd.yahoo.com> Message-ID: References: <20040523194302.81454.qmail@web90007.mail.scd.yahoo.com> 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 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