Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200619143056.24538-1-trini@konsulko.com> <CAP6exYJ64Hy9y3Dzh9Asrq8Y0oDWYk+tf4UAcasEc-ZxTY8DAw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200622204034.GL27801@bill-the-cat>
In-Reply-To: <20200622204034.GL27801@bill-the-cat>
From:   ron minnich <rminnich@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 22 Jun 2020 13:56:24 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP6exYLd0uFbVSbn28iS1OV=jULtg2f+7t1DAn-fvGoRSd5dng@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] initrd: Remove erroneous comment
To:     Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>
Cc:     lkml - Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
        Dominik Brodowski <linux@dominikbrodowski.net>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

So, let me first add,  the comment can be removed as needed. Comments
offered only for clarification.

On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 1:40 PM Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:

> But what do you mean UEFI "consumes" initrd= ?

What I mean is, there are bootloaders that will, if they see initrd=
in the command line, remove it: the kernel will never see it.

>  I guess looking at
> Documentation/x86/boot.rst is where treating initrd= as a file that
> should be handled and ramdisk_image / ramdisk_size set came from.  I do
> wonder what happens in the case of ARM/ARM64 + UEFI without device tree.

it is possible that the initrd= argument will not be seen by the
kernel. That's my understanding. Will this be a problem if so? It
would be for me :-)

>  And it doesn't provide any sort of link / context to the
> boot loader specification project or similar that explains the cases
> when a non-filename "initrd=" would reasonably (or unreasonably but
> happens in reality) be removed.

But it unreasonably happens as I learned the hard way :-)

Anyway, thanks Tom, I have no objections to whatever you all feel is
best to do with that comment. It was a failed attempt on my part to
explain the state of things :-)

ron