On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 08:25:39PM -0500, Robin Holt wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 05:39:33PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > On 04/17/2013 05:17 PM, Robin Holt wrote:
> > >
> > > There are 4 items being parsed out of reboot= for x86:
> > > - reboot_modew[arm] | c[old]
> > > - re
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 05:39:33PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 04/17/2013 05:17 PM, Robin Holt wrote:
> >
> > 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
On 04/17/2013 05:17 PM, Robin Holt wrote:
>
> There are 4 items being parsed out of reboot= for x86:
> - reboot_modew[arm] | c[old]
> - reboot_cpu s[mp]
> - reboot_typeb[ios] | a[cpi] | k[bd] | t[riple] | e[fi] |
> p[ci]
> - reboot_force
Better that than someone creating a completely different syntax.
Robin Holt 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 i
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 ce
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,smp3
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
On 04/17/2013 12:48 PM, Robin Holt wrote:
>
> Did you see my response I sent this morning?
>
I did not, although I just read it.
I have a hard time seeing maintaining backwards/forwards compatibility
as "very wrong" ... it would seem like a pretty major concern. In
comparison losing the curren
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 12:37:02PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 04/17/2013 11:43 AM, Robin Holt wrote:
> > Moving the reboot=s<##> parameter for x86 to a kernel parameter
> > proper. I did not find any other arch that was specifying the
> > reboot cpu.
> >
> > I left a compatibility mode in
On 04/17/2013 11:43 AM, Robin Holt wrote:
> Moving the reboot=s<##> parameter for x86 to a kernel parameter
> proper. I did not find any other arch that was specifying the
> reboot cpu.
>
> I left a compatibility mode in there. The new parameter always
> takes precedence. I also fixed up the cu
10 matches
Mail list logo