[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B25EE03.9090303@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:49:23 +0800
From: Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
To: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
gcosta@...hat.com, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [Patch] i386: remove 'usedac' kernel parameter
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 01:25:48 -0500
> Amerigo Wang <amwang@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>> It is scheduled to be removed.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: WANG Cong <amwang@...hat.com>
>> Cc: Glauber Costa <gcosta@...hat.com>
>> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
>>
>> ---
>> diff --git a/Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt b/Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt
>> index 591e944..8c895f6 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt
>> @@ -291,13 +291,6 @@ Who: Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de>
>>
>> ---------------------------
>>
>> -What: usedac i386 kernel parameter
>> -When: 2.6.27
>> -Why: replaced by allowdac and no dac combination
>> -Who: Glauber Costa <gcosta@...hat.com>
>> -
>> ----------------------------
>> -
>
> I'm not sure about the above description, I'm not against removing
> this option though.
>
> IIUC, the usedac option enables us to stop via_no_dac() setting
> forbid_dac to 1. That is, someone who uses VIA bridges can use DAC
> with this option even if some of VIA bridges seem to be broken about
> DAC. I can't see how we can do the same thing with "allowdac" and
> "nodac" combination.
Hmm, yes, right, I missed this point.
Thanks!
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists