Thank you all who replied!
2011/10/2 Ted Unangst :
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011, Vadim Zhukov wrote:
>> Hello all.
>>
>> After some talks on opennet.ru I dived into the sys/uvm/ and other
>> places, having a few more or less tech-nical questions raised now. Can
>> anybody answer them?
>
> Very nice.
>
>
> Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2011 18:55:00 +0100
> From: Stuart Henderson
>
> On 2011/10/02 07:38, Barbier, Jason wrote:
> > >>3. What's the point in keeping sys/arch/i386/i386/pmapae.c? Are there any
> > >>plans for re-enabling PAE support?
> >
> > PAE will always be needed for 32bit processors as I unde
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011, Vadim Zhukov wrote:
> Hello all.
>
> After some talks on opennet.ru I dived into the sys/uvm/ and other
> places, having a few more or less tech-nical questions raised now. Can
> anybody answer them?
Very nice.
> 1. amap_share_protect() in sys/uvm/uvm_amap.c is totally unus
On 2011/10/02 07:38, Barbier, Jason wrote:
> >>3. What's the point in keeping sys/arch/i386/i386/pmapae.c? Are there any
> >>plans for re-enabling PAE support?
>
> PAE will always be needed for 32bit processors as I understand it. There are
> some 32bit processors out there that the
> boards will
>>3. What's the point in keeping sys/arch/i386/i386/pmapae.c? Are there any
>>plans for re-enabling PAE support?
PAE will always be needed for 32bit processors as I understand it. There are
some 32bit processors out there that the
boards will allow for more than 4 gigs of ram But you will need PAE
Hello all.
After some talks on opennet.ru I dived into the sys/uvm/ and other
places, having a few more or less tech-nical questions raised now. Can
anybody answer them?
1. amap_share_protect() in sys/uvm/uvm_amap.c is totally unused, is there
any point for keeping it around?
2. Am I right th
