[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1283456340.28591.23.camel@pjaxe>
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 12:39:00 -0700
From: Peter P Waskiewicz Jr <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc: "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"andi@...stfloor.org" <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] [arch-x86] Allow SRAT integrity check to be skipped
On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 04:33 -0700, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 15:59 -0700, Peter P Waskiewicz Jr wrote:
>
> > +static int srat_bypass_bios;
> > +
> > +static int __init srat_bypass_bios_setup(char *str)
> > +{
> > + srat_bypass_bios = 1;
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +early_param("sratbypassbios", srat_bypass_bios_setup);
> > +
> > /* Use the information discovered above to actually set up the nodes. */
> > int __init acpi_scan_nodes(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
> > {
>
> I wonder, since all the things using the variable are __init, could it
> be as well? Just curious really.
That is a good question. It makes sense to me, but I just followed what
other boot-time options did, which are not marked __init. I'll defer to
anyone else on the list who is better-equipped to answer that.
-PJ
--
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