Hello, Geert. On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 07:25:31PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 6:31 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 09:27:23AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 05:30:02PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >> > > ata_force_param_buf is __initdata and shouldn't really matter. > >> > > >> > It mainly matters because of e.g. bootloader limitations. > >> > >> Do we need a full 4k for the force parameters? What would a typical > >> command line for it look like? > > > > Maybe a couple hundreds bytes at max, but it's a bit weird to restrict > > this given that it is bss, not gigantic and __initdata. What kind of > > bootloader limitations are we talking about? > > Some boot loaders start overwriting themselves or the passed DTB if the > kernel becomes too big. > If I'm not mistaken, bss is still expanded early (verified, increasing bss > can trigger the above problem). So, to avoid that, we can just kmalloc and kfree the buffer, but it seems like a silly complication to work around bugs in some bootloaders. There are many places in kernel where we're liberal about __initdata which is great. I'm not sure complicating all those places for a broken bootloader is a good idea. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
