Kexec command line length
horms at verge.net.au
Sun Feb 17 22:14:20 EST 2008
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 04:11:57PM -0500, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 08:16:25AM +0100, Bernhard Walle wrote:
> > * Vivek Goyal <vgoyal at redhat.com> [2008-01-30 22:45]:
> > >
> > > No. 2.04 is really old. As per boot.txt, it was introduced in 2.6.14.
> > >
> > > Anyway, thinking about it more, Large command lines were introduced in
> > > 2.6.21 kernel (for both i386 and x86_64). cmdline_size was introduced
> > > in 2.6.22 (for both i386 and x86_64). So how about following test
> > > condition for both the arch.
> > >
> > > if (boot_protocol >= 2.06)
> > > error message based on cmdline_size field
> > > else
> > > Warn user if command line is more than 256 but continue to work.
> > > Let the user know that it is not known if kernel being loaded
> > > supports command line size greater than 256. Command line will
> > > be truncated by destination kernel if it does not support large
> > > command lines. User is taking a chance
> > Yes, I also think that's sufficient.
> > Bernhard
> So, has anyone heard out of Simon? I've noted that he hasn't updated the git
> tree for kexec-tools nor has he posted to the list is almost 3 weeks. Anyone
> know if he's ok? Simon, if you're out there, give us a shout! :)
sorry to be quiet. I've been travling + other modes of busy.
I won't pretend to be an expert on the x86 boot protocol,
but this patch does look clean to me.
More information about the kexec