From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Jul 12 13:32:33 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA10035 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Sun, 12 Jul 1998 13:32:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from tim.xenologics.com (tim.xenologics.com [194.77.5.24]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA10024 for ; Sun, 12 Jul 1998 13:32:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from seggers@semyam.dinoco.de) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by tim.xenologics.com (8.8.5/8.8.8) with UUCP id WAA15071; Sun, 12 Jul 1998 22:27:39 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by semyam.dinoco.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA29400; Sun, 12 Jul 1998 21:37:15 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from seggers@semyam.dinoco.de) Message-Id: <199807121937.VAA29400@semyam.dinoco.de> Cc: dg@root.com, Stefan Eggers To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Page size flexibility in FreeBSD VM? In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 12 Jul 1998 06:36:29 PDT." <199807121336.GAA07869@implode.root.com> Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 21:37:15 +0200 From: Stefan Eggers Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > The goal is to be flexible enough to support our supported hardware > platforms. Right now, that would be Intel x86 (4K) and Alpha (8K) in the > future. But if there is an obvious problem it won't be bad to remove it before someone tries other page sizes? Low priority of course. Or should I leave it alone till someone has a need for other page sizes to spare resources? Stefan. -- Stefan Eggers Lu4 yao2 zhi1 ma3 li4, Max-Slevogt-Str. 1 ri4 jiu3 jian4 ren2 xin1. 51109 Koeln Federal Republic of Germany To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message