Messages in this thread | | | From | ron minnich <> | Date | Mon, 23 Mar 2020 15:38:15 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86 support for the initrd= command line option |
| |
nvm, it's only mentioned as a parameter for bootloaders.
Testing this change now.
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 3:29 PM ron minnich <rminnich@gmail.com> wrote: > > sounds good, I'm inclined to want to mention only initrdmem= in > Documentation? or just say initrd is discouraged or deprecated? > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 2:41 PM <hpa@zytor.com> wrote: > > > > On March 23, 2020 12:40:15 PM PDT, ron minnich <rminnich@gmail.com> wrote: > > >I'm wondering -- adding initrdmem= is easy, do you think we'll ever be > > >able to end uses of initrd= in the ARM and MIPS world? Is it ok to > > >have these two identical command line parameters? I'm guessing just > > >changing initrd= would be hard. > > > > > >Do we just accept initrd= from this day forward, as well as initrdmem=? > > > > > >On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 12:06 PM <hpa@zytor.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> On March 23, 2020 11:54:28 AM PDT, ron minnich <rminnich@gmail.com> > > >wrote: > > >> >On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 11:19 AM <hpa@zytor.com> wrote: > > >> >> Pointing to any number of memory chunks via setup_data works and > > >> >doesn't need to be exposed to the user, but I guess the above is > > >> >reasonable. > > >> > > > >> >so, good to go? > > >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> *However*, I would also suggest adding "initrdmem=" across > > >> >architectures that doesn't have the ambiguity. > > >> > > > >> >agreed. I can look at doing that next. > > >> > > > >> >ron > > >> > > >> I would prefer if we could put both into the same patchset. > > >> -- > > >> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > > > > Yes, accept both. > > -- > > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
| |