Itsuro Oda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I see. I would like to contribute as possible I can.
Pick some piece you that have an affinity for and work on it.
Problems are best solved by those who see them and by those who care :)
I believe Vivek Goyal is currently working on the remaining user spa
Hi,
On 17 Feb 2005 02:55:31 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:
> My role in this is that of maintainer and architect. On a practical
> level I gain nothing from a working crash-dump/kexec-on-panic
> implementation except it stops being a gating factor for the rest
> of the kexec
Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 05:49:51PM +0900, Itsuro Oda wrote:
> > Hi, Eric and all
> >
> > Attached is an implementation of /proc/cpumem.
> > /proc/cpumem shows the valid physical memory ranges.
> >
> > * i386 and x86_64
> > * implement valid_phys_ad
Itsuro Oda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi Eric,
>
> > The lack of a type field looses a fair amount of functionality compared
> > to /proc/iomem. In particular you can't see where the ACPI data is.
>
> Hmm, restricting System RAM only may be too pessimistic.
> (One of motivations of this work
4 matches
Mail list logo
