4 Dec
2006
4 Dec
'06
3:09 a.m.
On 12/3/06, Segher Boessenkool segher@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
Of course, given an OS that can handle non-contiguous ram, there would never be a need to anything BUT size the DRB to max size. But that was not the case in 1999.
There's no _need_ sure, but the result is pretty nasty: say, a DRB is set up for 128MB, but the DIMM it covers is only 64MB; then any access to the "high half" of the DRB aliases to the lower addresses. Not a problem /an sich/, but it makes certain problems hard to debug.
no, because the e820 tables or whatever would set up a set of regions of memory. OS would never access the memory that does not exist.
ron