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]>
- Re: [syslinux] Re: THE LINUX/I386 BOOT PROTOCOL - Breaking the 256 limit
- 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]>
- Re: THE LINUX/I386 BOOT PROTOCOL - Breaking the 256 limit
- 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):
