In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Request: increase in PCI bus limit Christopher Neufeld
- Re: Request: increase in PCI bus limit Timur Tabi
- Re: Request: increase in PCI bus limit List User
- Re: Request: increase in PCI bus limit James Sutherland
- Re: Request: increase in PCI bus limit Udo A. Steinberg
- Re: Request: increase in PCI bus limit Helge Hafting
- Re: Request: increase in PCI bus limit Bernd Eckenfels
- Re: Request: increase in PCI bus limit Bernd Eckenfels
- Re: Request: increase in PCI bus limit Peter Samuelson
- Re: Request: increase in PCI bus limit George
- Re: Request: increase in PCI bus limi... Scott Laird
- Re: Request: increase in PCI bus... Dan Hollis
- Re: Request: increase in PCI bus... nick
- Re: Request: increase in PCI bus... Dr. Kelsey Hudson
- Re: Request: increase in PCI bus limi... Ralf Baechle
- Re: Request: increase in PCI bus limit Manfred Spraul
- Re: Request: increase in PCI bus limit Christopher Neufeld