From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1LfgFo-0003dp-IS for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Mar 2009 15:02:44 -0500 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LfgFm-0003dT-Ck for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Mar 2009 15:02:42 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LfgFj-0003aw-T3 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Mar 2009 15:02:41 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=46480 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LfgFj-0003ar-KK for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Mar 2009 15:02:39 -0500 Received: from mta-out.inet.fi ([195.156.147.13]:60260 helo=kirsi2.inet.fi) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LfgFi-00055C-UJ for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Mar 2009 15:02:39 -0500 Received: from [192.168.1.102] (84.248.105.254) by kirsi2.inet.fi (8.5.014) id 49ACED3A002D4A5E for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 22:02:35 +0200 Message-ID: <49B18154.80008@nic.fi> Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 22:02:28 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Vesa_J=E4=E4skel=E4inen?= User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: The development of GRUB 2 References: <20090306191933.GA29098@thorin> In-Reply-To: <20090306191933.GA29098@thorin> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Error: This connection is not (no longer?) in the cache. Subject: Re: [PATCH] make the generic Linux loader usable on i386-pc again X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GRUB 2 List-Id: The development of GRUB 2 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 20:02:42 -0000 Robert Millan wrote: > This patch makes the generic Linux loader usable on i386-pc again. It > doesn't seem like it's badly needed to spend a bit of time and a bit of > code in adding low memory to the heap, and Vesa's work on the new memory > manager should give a proper solution to this problem. > > I think in the meantime we could just not allocate low mem, assuming > nobody has a problem with that. If this really blocks it I have nothing against it. But could you share a bit insight what kind of memories are required to be where for Linux?