Re: kernel 2.2.6

1999-04-30 Thread Peter Allen
Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 27, 1999 at 04:16:40PM -0400, Allan M. Wind wrote: > > On 1999-04-27 18:53, Peter Allen wrote: > > > > > It is because on i386 machines the processor boots in real > > > mode, which is limited to the (in)famous 640Kb. > > > > (I am quite sure that) the 640 k l

Re: kernel 2.2.6

1999-04-29 Thread Hamish Moffatt
On Tue, Apr 27, 1999 at 04:16:40PM -0400, Allan M. Wind wrote: > On 1999-04-27 18:53, Peter Allen wrote: > > > It is because on i386 machines the processor boots in real > > mode, which is limited to the (in)famous 640Kb. > > (I am quite sure that) the 640 k limit is DOS, while the CPU's > real-m

Re: kernel 2.2.6

1999-04-28 Thread Allan M. Wind
On 1999-04-27 23:49, Helge Hafting wrote: > The processor do indeed have 1MB to play with, but only 640k of > that is RAM. The rest of that address space is reserved for > memory mapped devices such as the cga/vga compatible screen. > The 640k limit applies to all real-mode software, not > msdos

Re: kernel 2.2.6

1999-04-27 Thread Helge Hafting
> On 1999-04-27 18:53, Peter Allen wrote: > > > It is because on i386 machines the processor boots in real > > mode, which is limited to the (in)famous 640Kb. > > (I am quite sure that) the 640 k limit is DOS, while the CPU's > real-mode limit is 1 MB. The processor do indeed have 1MB to play w

Re: kernel 2.2.6

1999-04-27 Thread Peter Allen
--- Begin Message --- I am pretty sure it is a hardware limitation Are well, it doesn't matter particularly. Peter Allen Allan M. Wind wrote: > > On 1999-04-27 18:53, Peter Allen wrote: > > > It is because on i386 machines the processor boots in real > > mode, which is limit

Re: kernel 2.2.6

1999-04-27 Thread Allan M. Wind
On 1999-04-27 18:53, Peter Allen wrote: > It is because on i386 machines the processor boots in real > mode, which is limited to the (in)famous 640Kb. (I am quite sure that) the 640 k limit is DOS, while the CPU's real-mode limit is 1 MB. /Allan -- Allan M. Wind Phone: 781.9

Re: kernel 2.2.6

1999-04-27 Thread Peter Allen
It is because on i386 machines the processor boots in real mode, which is limited to the (in)famous 640Kb. The kernel can be copied starting at address 0x1, which takes the available space down to 576Kb, then I think there must be 64Kb used at the other end, hence the 512Kb as a pose to 640Kb

Re: kernel 2.2.6

1999-04-27 Thread Helge Hafting
> Yes! But could anyone explaing to me why it is must be less than 512kb?? The boot loader doesn't run in protected mode. It runs in a 8086 compatible mode that the pc BIOS set up. The cpu can only address 640kB of memory in this mode. Some of this space is needed for the boot loader itself, so

Re: kernel 2.2.6

1999-04-27 Thread Shao Zhang
Yes! But could anyone explaing to me why it is must be less than 512kb?? Thanks Alec Smith wrote: > System has to be 512kb if I recall. > > make bzImage modules modules_install install > > is the command I use to build a kernel and it works without any problems. > Just did it with 2.2.6 on 2 mac

Re: kernel 2.2.6

1999-04-25 Thread Hamish Moffatt
On Sat, Apr 24, 1999 at 06:02:50PM -0400, Timothy Hospedales wrote: > What is the inherent issue which puts a limit on the size max size of > the kernel? And what plans do Linus et al have for 3.0+ or whenever even "bz" > Kernels pass this size limit? How close does bzImage come to the lim

Re: kernel 2.2.6

1999-04-25 Thread John Foster
Anonymous Coward wrote: > > i'm a new debian user, but fairly experienced linux user. i just got > slink (debian 2.1) in the mail so installed it. i downloaded kernel > 2.2.6 to upgrade the first time it said a86 command not found so i > searched mailing list archives and found out i needed the

Re: kernel 2.2.6

1999-04-24 Thread Timothy Hospedales
What is the inherent issue which puts a limit on the size max size of the kernel? And what plans do Linus et al have for 3.0+ or whenever even "bz" Kernels pass this size limit? >> Root device is (3,5) >> Boot sector is 512 bytes >> Setup is 1286 bytes >> System is 526 kB >> System is too

RE: kernel 2.2.6

1999-04-24 Thread Christian Dysthe
Hi, is there any reason not to use kpkg? I have always used kpkg to install Debian kernels. Makes it very easy. (Of course, kpkg needs to be installed). I do the following from /src/linux (where the kernel source is unpacked, and after having run make config or xconfig): make-kpkg clean make-kpk

Re: kernel 2.2.6

1999-04-24 Thread Alec Smith
System has to be 512kb if I recall. make bzImage modules modules_install install is the command I use to build a kernel and it works without any problems. Just did it with 2.2.6 on 2 machines yesterday. On Sat, 24 Apr 1999, Anonymous Coward wrote: > i'm a new debian user, but fairly expe

Re: kernel 2.2.6

1999-04-24 Thread Khalid EZZARAOUI
try to make some option of your config to be module : for the sound scsi printer line but don't do it for importante thing like : ext2 scsi if you boot on a scsi drive bye

Re: kernel 2.2.6

1999-04-24 Thread shaleh
> > i'm a new debian user, but fairly experienced linux user. i just got > slink (debian 2.1) in the mail so installed it. i downloaded kernel > 2.2.6 to upgrade the first time it said a86 command not found so i > searched mailing list archives and found out i needed the bin86 package > so then