On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Andi Kleen wrote: > > Forgive me for not wading through the code, but it really needs to > > be spelt out in the comments: what's wrong with the existing kernel, > > with "noapic nolapic" in the distro's bootstring by default? > > It's harder to explain and traditionally in LILO you couldn't remove > any options (in grub you can now).
And it's just that initial installation boot, via grub, which really matters. Thereafter can be edited, before perhaps switching to LILO. > I think it makes much more sense > to have an positive option for this too, not a negative one. I do agree that positives are easier to understand than negatives, and if it were some C variable I'd be arguing the same way. But we seem to have a long tradition of "no" boot options to disable features, and you're asking to reverse that tradition: fair enough, but let's be clear about that. Might be easiest to understand if every "no" has a no-"no". (But then where does the CONFIG come in?) > Also I must add my patch fixes real bugs in the code, not just > adding the new option. Good, but then they should be in a separate patch. > > I'm not going to be the only one confused by this! > > I think there is much more confusion in the current way. I'll shut up now, let's see what others think. Hugh - 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/
