Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 11 Oct 2005 09:48:39 +0800 | From | Coywolf Qi Hunt <> | Subject | Re: THE LINUX/I386 BOOT PROTOCOL - Breaking the 256 limit |
| |
On 9/7/05, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote: > Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > > > > Hello Peter, I've written a reply before but got no response... > > > > The idea of putting arguments in initramfs is not practical, since the > > whole idea is to have the same image of system and affecting its > > behavior using the boot loader... > > > > No, you're wrong. The boot loader can synthesize an initramfs. > > > I would like to push forward the idea to extend the command-line size... > > > > All we need for start is an updated version of the "THE LINUX/I386 BOOT > > PROTOCOL" document that states that in the 2.02+ protocol the boot > > loader should set cmd_line_ptr to a pointer to a null terminated string > > without any size restriction, specifying that the kernel will read as > > much as it can. > > Already pushed to Andrew. I will follow it up with a patch to extend > the command line, at least to 512. > > > After I get this update, I will try to work with GRUB and LILO so that > > they will fix their implementation. Currently they claim that they > > understand that they should truncate the string to 256. > > > > After that I will provide my simple patch for setting the maximum size > > the kernel allocates in the configuration. > > > > BTW: Do you know why the COMMAND_LINE_SIZE constant is located in two > > separate include files? > > No, I don't. It could be because one is included from assembly code in > the i386 architecture.
The kernel uses the setup.h COMMAND_LINE_SIZE for both assembly and C code. COMMAND_LINE_SIZE in param.h is only for bootloader IMHO. -- Coywolf Qi Hunt http://sosdg.org/~coywolf/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |