Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751124AbWEEO0N (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 May 2006 10:26:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751557AbWEEO0N (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 May 2006 10:26:13 -0400 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.188]:35644 "EHLO nf-out-0910.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751124AbWEEO0M (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 May 2006 10:26:12 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=JTND3OIYpr8xaBJXjm1nY8belh+n5fPio5hQWaTpj6WhrNHH474APwBa/tKLJ19OSek48BPLbgMAIgz1UxKOfgR49h9iZYx5V065tPxrWOZr8oqKNG3fab2o/bOAgPb8pcUKMJeIaxwuSkd/cC5MhQhqcjzbfSP4WGzUKZfBmwc= Message-ID: <445B610A.7020009@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 17:28:26 +0300 From: Alon Bar-Lev User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (X11/20060501) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "H. Peter Anvin" CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List , "Barry K. Nathan" , Adrian Bunk , Riley@Williams.Name, tony.luck@intel.com, johninsd@san.rr.com Subject: Re: [PATCH][TAKE 4] THE LINUX/I386 BOOT PROTOCOL - Breaking the 256 limit References: <445B5524.2090001@gmail.com> <445B5C92.5070401@zytor.com> In-Reply-To: <445B5C92.5070401@zytor.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1792 Lines: 54 H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Alon Bar-Lev wrote: >> >>> 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. >> > > Can we get the details, please, instead of a repeat of the same patch, > so we can figure out a proper solution? > > -hpa > Hello Peter, I don't know any other way to get the details. I am truly thank you for your responses. But the people that rejected this patch gave no detailed reason! I've extended the CC list this time in a hope that someone will reply. I also specify the exact history for this issue... In order to encourage relevant people to reply. This should be a simple modification and I don't see why we should fight on the LILO problem (if exists) when we have the compile time config options alternative. People who uses LILO may leave the default 256 value. Other may migrate to a higher one. I also don't understand why every architecture have a different command line size... The compile time config option may solve all this to a unified solution with different default for every architecture. I will be glad to learn of a better to push this matter forward, without adding a LILO specific code into the kernel, which I don't think is wise... I prefer to continue patching my and others kernel and not mess up kernel with LILO specific code. If you think I should stop this effort, please say so... I will drop it. Best Regards, Alon Bar-Lev. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/