Re: EBDA Question

2005-02-26 Thread H. Peter Anvin
Bukie Mabayoje wrote: In general, dropping the EBDA below 0x9a000 is probably a bad idea. Recent Linux kernels and boot loaders should handle it, though. Keep in mind that you might find yourself in serious trouble if you then have, for example, a PXE stack layered on top of your SCSI BIOS. There

Re: EBDA Question

2005-02-26 Thread Bukie Mabayoje
"H. Peter Anvin" wrote: > Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > By author:"Moore, Eric Dean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > > > EBDA - Extended Bios Data Area > > > > Does Linux and various boot loaders(lilo/grub/etc) > > having any restrictions on where and how big >

Re: EBDA Question

2005-02-08 Thread H. Peter Anvin
Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> By author:"Moore, Eric Dean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > EBDA - Extended Bios Data Area > > Does Linux and various boot loaders(lilo/grub/etc) > having any restrictions on where and how big > memory allocated in EBDA is? Is this > h

RE: EBDA Question

2005-02-07 Thread Salyzyn, Mark
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Subject: EBDA Question EBDA - Extended Bios Data Area Does Linux and various boot loaders(lilo/grub/etc) having any restrictions on where and how big memory allocated in EBDA is? Is this handled for 2.4/2.6 Kernels? Reason I ask is we are considering having BIOS(for

EBDA Question

2005-02-07 Thread Moore, Eric Dean
EBDA - Extended Bios Data Area Does Linux and various boot loaders(lilo/grub/etc) having any restrictions on where and how big memory allocated in EBDA is? Is this handled for 2.4/2.6 Kernels? Reason I ask is we are considering having BIOS(for a SCSI HBA Controller) allocating memory in EBDA for