Re: THE LINUX/I386 BOOT PROTOCOL - Breaking the 256 limit

On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 03:01:57PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> Maybe not.  Another option would simply be to bump it up
> significantly (2x isn't really that much.)  4096, maybe.

I wonder if we're not at the point where we need something different
to what we have now.  The concept of a command-line works for passing
simple state but for more complex things it's too cumbersome.
-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [syslinux] Re: THE LINUX/I386 BOOT PROTOCOL - Breaking the 256 limit
    • From: Peter Jones <[email protected]>
  • Re: THE LINUX/I386 BOOT PROTOCOL - Breaking the 256 limit
    • From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>
  • Re: THE LINUX/I386 BOOT PROTOCOL - Breaking the 256 limit
    • From: Jesper Juhl <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: THE LINUX/I386 BOOT PROTOCOL - Breaking the 256 limit
    • From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>
  • Re: THE LINUX/I386 BOOT PROTOCOL - Breaking the 256 limit
    • From: Chris Wedgwood <[email protected]>
  • Re: THE LINUX/I386 BOOT PROTOCOL - Breaking the 256 limit
    • From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: FW: [RFC] A more general timeout specification
• Next by Date: Re: FW: [RFC] A more general timeout specification
• Previous by thread: Re: THE LINUX/I386 BOOT PROTOCOL - Breaking the 256 limit
• Next by thread: Re: THE LINUX/I386 BOOT PROTOCOL - Breaking the 256 limit
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]