Better that than someone creating a completely different syntax. Robin Holt <h...@sgi.com> wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 03:15:33PM -0500, Robin Holt wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 12:59:57PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> > It is also worth noting that the documentation says reboot=s[mp]# >> > whereas in fact only reboot=s# parse correctly. I consider this to >be a >> > bug. >> > >> > If we centralized the parser, we could take a string like >> > >> > "reboot=bios,smp32,warm" >> > >> > and parse it into: >> > >> > reboot_cpu = 32 >> > reboot_mode = "bw" >> > >> > ... and pass the information in that form to the arch layer. I >don't >> > think we can do more parsing at that in the main kernel. >> >> OK. I will go back to the drawing board again. > >There are 4 items being parsed out of reboot= for x86: > - reboot_mode w[arm] | c[old] > - reboot_cpu s[mp]#### > - reboot_type b[ios] | a[cpi] | k[bd] | t[riple] | e[fi] | p[ci] > - reboot_force f[orce] > >This seems like a lot to push into the generic kernel just to make it >appear consistent when there will be no real cross arch consistency. > > >Contrast that with: >1) New kernel parameter (reboot_cpu) which is clear and concise, uses >standard > parsing methods. >2) Backwards compatibility in that a user with an existing (broken) >reboot=s32 >on the command line will set reboot_cpu unless both were specified, in >which > case reboot_cpu takes precedence. > >What is so fundamentally wrong with that? It accomplishes exactly what >you had asked for in that existing users are not broken. We are >introducing >a new functionality in the general kernel. Why not introduce a new >parameter >associated with that functionality. > >Thanks, >Robin -- Sent from my mobile phone. Please excuse brevity and lack of formatting. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
