Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932102AbWIDCuc (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Sep 2006 22:50:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751324AbWIDCuc (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Sep 2006 22:50:32 -0400 Received: from pop5-1.us4.outblaze.com ([205.158.62.125]:10664 "HELO pop5-1.us4.outblaze.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751323AbWIDCub (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Sep 2006 22:50:31 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/26] Dynamic kernel command-line From: Nigel Cunningham To: Paul Mackerras Cc: Alon Bar-Lev , Andi Kleen , Matt Domsch , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, johninsd@san.rr.com, davej@codemonkey.org.uk, Riley@williams.name, trini@kernel.crashing.org, davem@davemloft.net, ecd@brainaid.de, jj@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz, anton@samba.org, wli@holomorphy.com, lethal@linux-sh.org, rc@rc0.org.uk, spyro@f2s.com, rth@twiddle.net, avr32@atmel.com, hskinnemoen@atmel.com, starvik@axis.com, ralf@linux-mips.org, matthew@wil.cx, grundler@parisc-linux.org, geert@linux-m68k.org, zippel@linux-m68k.org, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, uclinux-v850@lsi.nec.co.jp, chris@zankel.net In-Reply-To: <17659.26177.846522.226410@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> References: <200609040050.13410.alon.barlev@gmail.com> <17659.26177.846522.226410@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 12:50:20 +1000 Message-Id: <1157338220.10336.147.camel@nigel.suspend2.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.7.92 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1146 Lines: 35 Hi. On Mon, 2006-09-04 at 09:33 +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote: > Alon Bar-Lev writes: > > > Current implementation stores a static command-line > > buffer allocated to COMMAND_LINE_SIZE size. Most > > architectures stores two copies of this buffer, one > > for future reference and one for parameter parsing. > > Under what circumstances do we actually need a command line of more > than 256 bytes? > > It seems to me that if 256 bytes isn't enough, we should take a deep > breath, step back, and think about whether there might be a better way > to pass whatever information it is that's using up so much of the > command line. I agree. The current limit varies widely, most often being 256 or 512, but sometimes also 896 (s390!) or 1024 (arm, arm26, parisc) or 4096 (uml). Would users and developers of those arches care to enlighten? Why 896? Regards, Nigel -- VGER BF report: H 4.24346e-05 - 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/