Re: [PATCH] x86: kill arch/x86/kernel/mpparse.c debugging printk.

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com> wrote:

> |   early_param conversions - and i think highlighting that as 
> |   separate commits might give someone ideas to improve the 
> |   early_param() facility, if they see the fix patterns.
> 
> Ingo - I think the problem with early_param is not NULL itself but 
> rather - what is the right way to deal with boot params? I mean we 
> could pass empty string (not NULL) in case of argument absence _but_ 
> would it be the right way? If you remember when I sent first series 
> for early_param checking (and actually there are number of same issue 
> exists for example in s390 arch) - I was asking community what is the 
> best way - since I'm not that strong in interface engineering - i 
> prefer fix the bugs :)

what would be the downside of passing in empty strings? I cannot see any 
serious one. The upside is that the conversion is more mechanic and 
safer as well.

Maybe the return code inversion could be / should be fixed as well, that 
seems like an unnecessary change as well:

  -       return 1;
  +       return 0;
   }
  -__setup("apic=", apic_set_verbosity);
  +early_param("apic", apic_set_verbosity);

Why do early-params have a different return convention from 
usual-params? It's just an unnecessary barrier against conversion to 
early params.

	Ingo