[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#276840: bootprompt limit



Frans Pop wrote:
> On Saturday 16 October 2004 23:26, Geert Stappers wrote:
> >  check/a=1 check/b=2 check/c=3 check/d=4
> >  languagechooser/language-name=English countrychooser/shortlist=NL
> 
> I can confirm that some boot parameters are lost in the environment.
> 
> Of the above sequence only the first three are listed in `set`.
> All are listed in `cat /proc/cmdline`
> This is with kernel 2.4.27 in qemu (i386 netinst CD image of 20041015).
> 
> Hmm. If I try the same with 2.6.8 kernel I get a real-life kernel panic:
>   Kernel panic: Too many boot env vars at `check/d=4'
> d-i does not even boot!

The kernel has dual limits of 8 command line options and 8 environment
options on the boot command line. A command line option has no "=" in
it; environment options do. After reaching either limit, 2.6.8 panics;
2.4.27 throws options away silently. Our default i386 boot command line
has 2 command line options and 6 environment options:

vga=normal initrd=initrd.gz ramdisk_size=xxx root=/dev/rd0 devfs=mount,dall rw -- BOOT_IMAGE=linux

(The BOOT_IMAGE=linux is always added by syslinux.)

Some of this is not really necessary, so you could remove the vga=normal
(what does that do?) and the devfs=mount,dall (devfs is mounted by the
initrd, and we don't really need devfs debugging). Trim the line down to
this:

initrd=initrd.gz ramdisk_size=xxx root=/dev/rd/0 rw -- BOOT_IMAGE=linux

That will give you space to preseed two more debconf variables.

I've thought about removing some of the extraneous parameters from the
installer's stock syslinux.cfg, but I hesitate to do so right now, when
we don't have time to test such a change widely before release. If I
were to remove one of the two, I'd choose the devfs option, since I know
that d-i can mount devfs. I'm not sure if vga=normal fixes some video
problems on some hardware or why we use it.

-- 
see shy jo

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: