Atsushi Nemoto wrote: > On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 10:21:22 +0200, Franck Bui-Huu <vagabon.xyz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Maybe you can add something like "initrdmem=xxx@yyy", keeping >>> "rd_start" and "rd_size" for the backward compatibility. Just a >>> thought. >> Well that what I was planning when writing this patch but I didn't. >> I think that we will end up with two different semantics and the >> old one never replaced by the new one... Except if we mark them as >> deprecated by showing a warning at boot. What do you think ? > > While the kernel command line is very limited resource (only 256 > chars), I prefer a single short option to specify initrd range, if > available. > > But nothing wrong with rd_start and rd_size, and it seems there are > some boot loader expected them already, so removing them would not be > good (especially without some grace period). > > I don't care if there were two way to specify initrd range. It would > be somewhat redundant, but that is usual on "Backword compatibility" > issue, isn't it? ;-) > Well, I resent a new version (take #2) of the patchset that uses _only_ "rd_xxx" semantic. I prefer not add some code which isn't going to be used. Mainly because only bootloaders use this parameter and I guess they never change the way they pass initrd address. And there won't be a lot of new bootloaders anyways. Thanks Franck
