From owner-freebsd-current  Mon Apr 19 16:21:15 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from octopus.originative (originat.demon.co.uk [158.152.220.9])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id E6EA514C59; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 16:21:06 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from paul@originative.co.uk)
Received: by octopus with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
	id <2RSVN4Z5>; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 00:16:43 +0100
Message-ID: <A6D02246E1ABD2119F5200C0F0303D10FEF0@octopus>
From: paul@originative.co.uk
To: richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk, paul@originative.co.uk,
	freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: RE: lnc0: broke for us between 3.1 and 4.0?
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 00:16:37 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Tobin [mailto:richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk]
> Sent: 19 April 1999 23:59
> To: paul@originative.co.uk; freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG;
> freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG
> Subject: RE: lnc0: broke for us between 3.1 and 4.0?
> 
> 
> > > lnc0: Memory allocated above 16Mb limit
> 
> > I've just committed a fix for this. It was caused by the 
> change to the way
> > vm_page.c allocates memory
> 
> Is this fix going into stable?  (I'm a little surprised that such a
> change was considered appropriate for the stable branch in the first
> place.)

I didn't think the memory allocation change was in stable but I may merge
the lnc changes back into -stable anyway since it's a cleaner way of doing
things.

I've got some other lnc problems to fix first though.

Paul.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message