On 2/3/06, Alon Bar-Lev <[email protected]> wrote:
> diff -urNp linux-2.6.16-rc2/include/asm-i386/param.h linux-2.6.16-rc2.new/include/asm-i386/param.h
> --- linux-2.6.16-rc2/include/asm-i386/param.h 2006-01-03 05:21:10.000000000 +0200
> +++ linux-2.6.16-rc2.new/include/asm-i386/param.h 2006-02-03 21:23:21.000000000 +0200
> @@ -19,6 +19,6 @@
> #endif
>
> #define MAXHOSTNAMELEN 64 /* max length of hostname */
> -#define COMMAND_LINE_SIZE 256
> +#define COMMAND_LINE_SIZE 1024
>
> #endif
> diff -urNp linux-2.6.16-rc2/include/asm-i386/setup.h linux-2.6.16-rc2.new/include/asm-i386/setup.h
> --- linux-2.6.16-rc2/include/asm-i386/setup.h 2006-01-03 05:21:10.000000000 +0200
> +++ linux-2.6.16-rc2.new/include/asm-i386/setup.h 2006-02-03 21:19:44.000000000 +0200
> @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@
> #define MAX_NONPAE_PFN (1 << 20)
>
> #define PARAM_SIZE 4096
> -#define COMMAND_LINE_SIZE 256
> +#define COMMAND_LINE_SIZE 1024
>
> #define OLD_CL_MAGIC_ADDR 0x90020
> #define OLD_CL_MAGIC 0xA33F
> diff -urNp linux-2.6.16-rc2/include/asm-x86_64/setup.h linux-2.6.16-rc2.new/include/asm-x86_64/setup.h
> --- linux-2.6.16-rc2/include/asm-x86_64/setup.h 2006-01-03 05:21:10.000000000 +0200
> +++ linux-2.6.16-rc2.new/include/asm-x86_64/setup.h 2006-02-03 21:20:40.000000000 +0200
> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
> #ifndef _x8664_SETUP_H
> #define _x8664_SETUP_H
>
> -#define COMMAND_LINE_SIZE 256
> +#define COMMAND_LINE_SIZE 1024
>
> #endif
(Sorry, I didn't notice your patch when you posted it in the past, or
I would have responded back then.)
FWIW, this was tried between 2.6.11-rc1 and 2.6.11-rc2 (except it was
256->2048 instead of 256->1024), and it was reverted before 2.6.11-rc2
because it broke booting with lilo -- for many people, the change
caused their system to freeze early during boot.
This is what the 2.6.11-rc2 changelog has to say about the matter:
> Revert "x86_64/i386: increase command line size" patch
>
> It's a bootup dependancy, you can't just increase it randomly, and
> it breaks booting with LILO.
>
> Pointed out by Janos Farkas and Adrian Bunk.
Has this issue been addressed yet? (i.e. does 1024 avoid the problem
that 2048 had, or did anything else change in the kernel between
2.6.11-rc1 and today to prevent the problem from happening again?)
--
-Barry K. Nathan <[email protected]>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
