| |||||||||||||
Pettenò: Debunking x32 mythsPettenò: Debunking x32 mythsPosted Jun 26, 2012 7:26 UTC (Tue) by elanthis (guest, #6227)In reply to: Pettenò: Debunking x32 myths by ringerc Parent article: Pettenò: Debunking x32 myths
The hilarious part here is that I'm pretty sure that poster was simply talking about the kernel maintainers accepting the x32 personality (necessary for an x86_64 kernel to run x32 programs). :)
(Log in to post comments)
Pettenò: Debunking x32 myths Posted Jun 27, 2012 16:05 UTC (Wed) by butlerm (subscriber, #13312) [Link]
No, I actually think an x32 native kernel (or the equivalent for ARM64) would be an excellent idea for a large class of embedded systems - routers and file servers in particular. It would also be promising for use with hosted virtual machines, where the impact of running dozens of kernels starts to add up.
|
|||||||||||||