From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25796C4332B for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2020 21:41:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC1DF20719 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2020 21:41:28 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=zytor.com header.i=@zytor.com header.b="KEEq6PJ9" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727026AbgCWVl2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Mar 2020 17:41:28 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.136]:33373 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726203AbgCWVl1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Mar 2020 17:41:27 -0400 Received: from [IPv6:2601:646:8600:3281:9577:eff3:b2f7:e372] ([IPv6:2601:646:8600:3281:9577:eff3:b2f7:e372]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.zytor.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 02NLf8Wb2806770 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 23 Mar 2020 14:41:11 -0700 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mail.zytor.com 02NLf8Wb2806770 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zytor.com; s=2020022001; t=1584999672; bh=w2MG91LkaSt9RC2E8wpHZp+JMoQKMaXMR+DC3b8lcSA=; h=Date:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:To:CC:From:From; b=KEEq6PJ9PlveDPHx0+4hNKjPYEWDwNKsITAeZJG/3OY9xlCYXlR2A6ORXPFVmC4IL r0JiOMWrWQ7552nIFm/9+e2E3qDsMpnXIkrVbH1euGOGoxoWjB8J8xDesQosRjd+MV uA/tUvu1x5WVS5IpLP/JcXjVeTr+yrLFMh4fkgv46MzwycZwxBRwExzNcXEH3Q9uSD b+ORvf6NlJScpPyNkhA7zjNRLx363NNvUjPnkENQmRdy87SgTadS2Sw1jw3ne0U5f9 p0GsFlU2rxFEA7H7HeM0kLneewfbCmorCUoQX4+a+2hAu4/vqPD3hMGsphWcbN8CXZ tc13vNSOAkOZw== Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2020 14:41:00 -0700 User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: References: <8E80838A-7A3F-4600-AF58-923EDA3DE91D@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86 support for the initrd= command line option To: ron minnich CC: Matthew Garrett , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE..." , lkml - Kernel Mailing List From: hpa@zytor.com Message-ID: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On March 23, 2020 12:40:15 PM PDT, ron minnich wrote= : >I'm wondering -- adding initrdmem=3D is easy, do you think we'll ever be >able to end uses of initrd=3D in the ARM and MIPS world? Is it ok to >have these two identical command line parameters? I'm guessing just >changing initrd=3D would be hard=2E > >Do we just accept initrd=3D from this day forward, as well as initrdmem= =3D? > >On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 12:06 PM wrote: >> >> On March 23, 2020 11:54:28 AM PDT, ron minnich >wrote: >> >On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 11:19 AM 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=2E >> > >> >so, good to go? >> > >> >> >> >> *However*, I would also suggest adding "initrdmem=3D" across >> >architectures that doesn't have the ambiguity=2E >> > >> >agreed=2E I can look at doing that next=2E >> > >> >ron >> >> I would prefer if we could put both into the same patchset=2E >> -- >> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail=2E Please excuse my brevity= =2E Yes, accept both=2E --=20 Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail=2E Please excuse my brevity=2E