Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAP6exY+LnUXaOVRZUXmi2wajCPZoJVMFFAwbCzN3YywWyhi8ZA@mail.gmail.com>
 <D31718CF-1755-4846-8043-6E62D57E4937@zytor.com> <CAP6exYJHgqsNq84DCjgNP=nOjp1Aud9J5JAiEZMXe=+dtm-QGA@mail.gmail.com>
 <8E80838A-7A3F-4600-AF58-923EDA3DE91D@zytor.com> <CACdnJusmAHJYauKvHEXNZKaUWPqZoabB_pSn5WokSy_gOnRtTw@mail.gmail.com>
 <A814A71D-0450-4724-885B-859BCD2B7CBD@zytor.com> <CAP6exYJdCzG5EOPB9uaWz+uG-KKt+j7aJMGMfqqD3vthco_Y_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CF1457CD-0BE2-4806-9703-E99146218BEC@zytor.com>
In-Reply-To: <CF1457CD-0BE2-4806-9703-E99146218BEC@zytor.com>
From:   ron minnich <rminnich@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 23 Mar 2020 12:40:15 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP6exYJj5n8tLibwnAPA554ax9gjUFvyMntCx4OYULUOknWQ0g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86 support for the initrd= command line option
To:     "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc:     Matthew Garrett <mjg59@google.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE..." <x86@kernel.org>,
        lkml - Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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.