On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 02:27:36PM -0400, Jon Fraser wrote: > > > On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 11:24 -0700, David Daney wrote: > > David VomLehn wrote: > > > On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 05:35:18PM +0100, Ralf Baechle wrote: > > >> On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 03:57:19PM -0700, David VomLehn wrote: > > >> > > >>> Most platforms can get by perfectly well with the default command line size, > > >>> but some platforms need more. This patch allows the command line size to > > >>> be configured for those platforms that need it. The default remains 256 > > >>> characters. > > >>> > > >>> Signed-off-by: David VomLehn <dvomlehn@xxxxxxxxx> > > >> How big of a command line do you need? For no scientific reason other > > >> than there not being any obvious need for a larger size MIPS is using 256 > > >> and I think unless you're asking for a huge number it will be better to > > >> just raise that constant. > > > > > > The answer depends on the platform, but it's at 438 characters on a typical > > > platform. If I *had* to pick a number, I'd probably go for 512 characters; I > > > just hate to force others to use memory they aren't going to use. > > > > > > > I wonder if the memory could be dynamically allocated. It would of > > course be a much larger patch. > > > > David Daney > > A bit of a chicken and egg problem if your command line arguments > set the memory configuration. > > Jon Fraser You could wait for a final copy of the command line until *after* you have at least the boot memory allocator working. Then other buffers used to hold the command line would be __initdata. Sounds like a bit of work, though, and it might be kind of fragile for such a small gain in memory. David VomLehn
