[PATCH 1/1] image: usage of value ~0UL for intrd_high

[Heinrich Schuchardt]

Am 9. Januar 2021 20:40:04 MEZ schrieb Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com>:
>On Sat, Jan 09, 2021 at 08:33:40PM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
>> On 1/9/21 7:58 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
>> > On Sat, Jan 09, 2021 at 08:47:07PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> > > On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 8:06 PM Heinrich Schuchardt
><xypron.glpk at gmx.de> wrote:
>> > > > 
>> > > > The comment for initrd_high in the coding and in README were
>contradicting
>> > > > and neither fully described what the coding does.
>> > > > 
>> > > > Clarify the usage of the special value ~0UL for the environment
>variable
>> > > > initrd_high.
>> > > 
>> > > All those F:s are hard to read in the comments and documentation
>and
>> > > typo prone. I would prefer to rephrase like "all 1:s value in 32-
>or
>> > > 64-bit format" or alike.
>> > 
>> > If we're going to improve this we should also note it's discouraged
>> > unless you know for certain there will be no overlap and it's
>strongly
>> > discouraged in default environments.
>> 
>> What exactly is discouraged?
>> 
>> * setting initrd_high to a value != ~0? Here I would agree.
>> * setting intird_high to ~0? Why should we copy initrd to a
>>   different place? Is it for some outdated Linux release?
>
>We should always default to allowing the initrd to be relocated because
>we can see (in many cases) overlap that will lead to failure to boot
>but
>this forces us to ignore that.  Having good default load values means
>we
>don't have a problem here.

We have an initrd that is already in memory. What could it overlap with that is not already overwritten?

Can you provide the text you want to see here?