linux-kernel - Re: [X86] Add a boot parameter to force-enable PAT

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <483353DB.7010708@keyaccess.nl>
Date:	Wed, 21 May 2008 00:42:35 +0200
From:	Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@...uu.se>,
	Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [X86] Add a boot parameter to force-enable PAT

On 21-05-08 00:21, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> Rene Herman wrote:
>>> +}
>>> +__setup("enablepat", x86_forcepat_setup);
>>
>> This should probably be called plain "pat" to mirror arch/x86/mm/pat.c 
>> "nopat" force off parameter. That by the way is an early_param which I 
>> guess this should then also be?
>>
> 
> Either that or "pat={off,on,force}" to give space for other options... 
> would mean keeping "nopat" around as an alias for now, though...

Yes, that would be nicer. As to the alias; "nopat" hasn't been in a 
released kernel yet so should be okay to do away with? It's not like 
it's in Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt or anything... ;-/

Rene.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/