[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130417194836.GK3658@sgi.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 14:48:36 -0500
From: Robin Holt <holt@....com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Robin Holt <holt@....com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Russ Anderson <rja@....com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v5 5/5] Make reboot_cpuid a kernel parameter.
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 there. The new parameter always
> > takes precedence. I also fixed up the current code to support
> > up to cpuid's up to the current max of 4096.
> >
>
> I still don't understand why you insist on introducing a new parameter
> rather than just supporting the existing, somewhat ugly, syntax: it is
> rare enough to need that the compatibility wins over the aestetics.
Did you see my response I sent this morning?
I would really like to try and remove the apparently unused reboot=
parameter from arm and unicore32 as well. Does anybody have a concern
with that? That should make documenting slightly easier.
> Furthermore that word "cpuid" that you keep using, I don't think it
> means what you think it means...
If we stayed with the core_param, would you prefer reboot_processor=###
over reboot_cpuid=###?
Robin
--
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