Re: initramfs breakage with 64-bits kernels?

["Kevin D. Kissell" <kevink@paralogos.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 799 bytes --]

Kevin D. Kissell wrote:
> Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> You mean the test for initrd_start being non-zero? Is your initramfs
>> really at address zero? 
> I'm not set up to verify this, but I have a nagging suspicion that a
> big-endian 64-bit kernel build could store an initrd_start address
> with 32 or fewer significant bits (i.e. it starts in the first 4GB) as
> a 64-bit pointer, but that the code in initramfs.c is testing the
> value as a 32-bit scalar type.  I don't know about lmo but in
> kernel.org 2.6.29, it's declared in include/linux/initrd.h as an
> extern unsigned long, not a void *.
And yes, I know that MIPS64 builds *should* have data type equivalence
for longs and pointers, but this behavior just smells like a data typing
mismatch problem, at some level.

          Kevin K.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1295 bytes --]