[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 6/6] setup.c: use early_param() for early command line parsin

To: Atsushi Nemoto <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] setup.c: use early_param() for early command line parsing
From: Franck Bui-Huu <>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 09:36:42 +0200
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta;; h=received:message-id:date:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:from; b=gtXTHHXZ9xZERyB5IKahatop+97B2/6QnkCvYgG7YRod0GWj6g2n+8uEisOvLsC61MbZvmpVWrFvnORdu9I44prqHDzhjLyxBJ3RqF6ybQIfrGnb7vE+mNF3M1qyRq4vv5kFkh8+Uo2hQAhwblBiMSDmBz4OJUUBKD8kscM/2t0=
In-reply-to: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <> <>
Reply-to: Franck <>
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20060614)
Atsushi Nemoto wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 10:21:22 +0200, Franck Bui-Huu <> 
> wrote:
>>> Maybe you can add something like "initrdmem=xxx@yyy", keeping
>>> "rd_start" and "rd_size" for the backward compatibility.  Just a
>>> thought.
>> Well that what I was planning when writing this patch but I didn't.
>> I think that we will end up with two different semantics and the
>> old one never replaced by the new one... Except if we mark them as
>> deprecated by showing a warning at boot. What do you think ?
> While the kernel command line is very limited resource (only 256
> chars), I prefer a single short option to specify initrd range, if
> available.
> But nothing wrong with rd_start and rd_size, and it seems there are
> some boot loader expected them already, so removing them would not be
> good (especially without some grace period).
> I don't care if there were two way to specify initrd range.  It would
> be somewhat redundant, but that is usual on "Backword compatibility"
> issue, isn't it?  ;-)

Well, I resent a new version (take #2) of the patchset that uses _only_
"rd_xxx" semantic. I prefer not add some code which isn't going to be
used. Mainly because only bootloaders use this parameter and I guess
they never change the way they pass initrd address. And there won't be
a lot of new bootloaders anyways.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>