From: "Barry K. Nathan" <barryn@pobox.com>
To: Alon Bar-Lev <alon.barlev@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] THE LINUX/I386 BOOT PROTOCOL - Breaking the 256 limit - Resubmit
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 00:43:57 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <986ed62e0602060043o5e203341ra5daf0fe628866f9@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <43E3BDDD.6000402@gmail.com>
On 2/3/06, Alon Bar-Lev <alon.barlev@gmail.com> wrote:
> diff -urNp linux-2.6.16-rc2/include/asm-i386/param.h linux-2.6.16-rc2.new/include/asm-i386/param.h
> --- linux-2.6.16-rc2/include/asm-i386/param.h 2006-01-03 05:21:10.000000000 +0200
> +++ linux-2.6.16-rc2.new/include/asm-i386/param.h 2006-02-03 21:23:21.000000000 +0200
> @@ -19,6 +19,6 @@
> #endif
>
> #define MAXHOSTNAMELEN 64 /* max length of hostname */
> -#define COMMAND_LINE_SIZE 256
> +#define COMMAND_LINE_SIZE 1024
>
> #endif
> diff -urNp linux-2.6.16-rc2/include/asm-i386/setup.h linux-2.6.16-rc2.new/include/asm-i386/setup.h
> --- linux-2.6.16-rc2/include/asm-i386/setup.h 2006-01-03 05:21:10.000000000 +0200
> +++ linux-2.6.16-rc2.new/include/asm-i386/setup.h 2006-02-03 21:19:44.000000000 +0200
> @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@
> #define MAX_NONPAE_PFN (1 << 20)
>
> #define PARAM_SIZE 4096
> -#define COMMAND_LINE_SIZE 256
> +#define COMMAND_LINE_SIZE 1024
>
> #define OLD_CL_MAGIC_ADDR 0x90020
> #define OLD_CL_MAGIC 0xA33F
> diff -urNp linux-2.6.16-rc2/include/asm-x86_64/setup.h linux-2.6.16-rc2.new/include/asm-x86_64/setup.h
> --- linux-2.6.16-rc2/include/asm-x86_64/setup.h 2006-01-03 05:21:10.000000000 +0200
> +++ linux-2.6.16-rc2.new/include/asm-x86_64/setup.h 2006-02-03 21:20:40.000000000 +0200
> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
> #ifndef _x8664_SETUP_H
> #define _x8664_SETUP_H
>
> -#define COMMAND_LINE_SIZE 256
> +#define COMMAND_LINE_SIZE 1024
>
> #endif
(Sorry, I didn't notice your patch when you posted it in the past, or
I would have responded back then.)
FWIW, this was tried between 2.6.11-rc1 and 2.6.11-rc2 (except it was
256->2048 instead of 256->1024), and it was reverted before 2.6.11-rc2
because it broke booting with lilo -- for many people, the change
caused their system to freeze early during boot.
This is what the 2.6.11-rc2 changelog has to say about the matter:
> Revert "x86_64/i386: increase command line size" patch
>
> It's a bootup dependancy, you can't just increase it randomly, and
> it breaks booting with LILO.
>
> Pointed out by Janos Farkas and Adrian Bunk.
Has this issue been addressed yet? (i.e. does 1024 avoid the problem
that 2048 had, or did anything else change in the kernel between
2.6.11-rc1 and today to prevent the problem from happening again?)
--
-Barry K. Nathan <barryn@pobox.com>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-02-06 8:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-02-03 20:32 Alon Bar-Lev
2006-02-06 4:18 ` Randy.Dunlap
2006-02-06 7:38 ` Alon Bar-Lev
2006-02-06 8:43 ` Barry K. Nathan [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=986ed62e0602060043o5e203341ra5daf0fe628866f9@mail.gmail.com \
--to=barryn@pobox.com \
--cc=alon.barlev@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®