From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 20:49:04 +0000 From: Russell King Subject: Re: [patch] remove MAX_ARG_PAGES Message-ID: <20061229204904.GI20596@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <65dd6fd50610101705t3db93a72sc0847cd120aa05d3@mail.gmail.com> <1160572460.2006.79.camel@taijtu> <65dd6fd50610111448q7ff210e1nb5f14917c311c8d4@mail.gmail.com> <65dd6fd50610241048h24af39d9ob49c3816dfe1ca64@mail.gmail.com> <20061229200357.GA5940@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061229200357.GA5940@elte.hu> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Ollie Wild , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, parisc-linux@lists.parisc-linux.org, Linus Torvalds , Arjan van de Ven , linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , Andi Kleen , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, David Howells , Peter Zijlstra List-ID: On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 09:03:57PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > FYI, i have forward ported your MAX_ARG_PAGES limit removal patch to > 2.6.20-rc2 and have included it in the -rt kernel. It's working great - > i can now finally do a "ls -t patches/*.patch" in my patch repository - > something i havent been able to do for years ;-) How do the various autoconf stuff react to this? Eg, I notice the following in various configure scripts: checking the maximum length of command line arguments... 32768 Suggest you test (eg) a rebuild of libX11 to see how it reacts to this patch. -- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org