Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 09:08:23 +0200 From: Stefan =?iso-8859-1?Q?E=DFer?= <se@freebsd.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 5.1-RELEASE TODO Message-ID: <20030514070823.GA71857@StefanEsser.FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <3EC1CBC8.E263A9EF@mindspring.com> References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1030513145309.72145R-100000@fledge.watson.org> <20030513215348.K14785@daneel.foundation.hs> <3EC1CBC8.E263A9EF@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2003-05-13 21:53 -0700, Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> wrote: > > wouldn't a release that corrupts data in many, relevant, cases (i consider > > the box i had the trouble with entirely mainstream) be worse than no > > release at all? > > Bosko's fix raises the minimum memory requirements by 3M. It's > probably worth it for most people, but it will probably annoy > other people... Seems we could have DISABLE_PG_G in GENERIC and have Bosko's fix compiled in for CPU models >= 586 (the 486 isn't affected, AFAIK) only if DISABLE_PG_G is NOT specified in the kernel config file ? I.e. GENERIC disables use of 4M pages but does not need the extra 3MB of RAM, while a custom kernel without DISABLE_PG_G needs the extra memory but contains the "fix" ... Regards, STefan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030514070823.GA71857>