From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759437AbXH1SJV (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Aug 2007 14:09:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753940AbXH1SJD (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Aug 2007 14:09:03 -0400 Received: from nic.NetDirect.CA ([216.16.235.2]:35821 "EHLO rubicon.netdirect.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754084AbXH1SJB (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Aug 2007 14:09:01 -0400 X-Originating-Ip: 72.143.66.27 Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 13:58:05 -0400 (EDT) From: "Robert P. J. Day" X-X-Sender: rpjday@localhost.localdomain To: "H. Peter Anvin" cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: ok to kill "ether=" kernel parm? In-Reply-To: <46D45A02.6010306@zytor.com> Message-ID: References: <46D45111.2040600@zytor.com> <46D45A02.6010306@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Net-Direct-Inc-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-Net-Direct-Inc-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-Net-Direct-Inc-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-16.8, required 5, autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED -1.80, BAYES_00 -15.00, INIT_RECVD_OUR_AUTH -20.00, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL 20.00) X-Net-Direct-Inc-MailScanner-From: rpjday@mindspring.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > > >> Robert P. J. Day wrote: > >>> given that "ether=" has been officially obsolete since 2.6.18 > >>> (replaced by "netdev="), is there any reason to keep it around? > >>> or can it be blasted? > >> That sounds like way too short of a timeline for breaking people's > >> working boot setup. For a lot of people, 2.6.18->current is going > >> to be a single step. > > > > actually, now that i look more closely at the code browser at > > lxr.linux.no, "ether=" has been listed as "obsolete" since *at least* > > 2.6.10. not to sound unsympathetic but anyone who tries to jump from > > 2.6.10 to 2.6.24 in one step deserves what they get. :-) > > > > ok, that was cruel, but you see my point, right? > > Yes, and I think it's quite pointless. > > The thing is, people's boot setups have probably been that way since > *long* before 2.6.9. They continue to work, as they should, so they > aren't changed. This is why we very rarely break boot interfaces > (and this is a user-visible interface you're talking about); we're > still supporting interfaces that have been obsolete *SINCE BEFORE > 1.0 WAS RELEASED.* > > What's the upside of changing? What's the downside? The upside is > so infinitesimal that that leaving "ether=" in indefinitely seems > like a good move to me. i've never found these "well, it's not hurting anything" arguments terribly compelling. if that's the case, why remove *anything* from the kernel? why obsolete *anything*? but that's not my actual point. why continue to support two different ways to do the same thing? in situations like that, i can imagine the following (admittedly hypothetical) conversation between old-timer and young geek: OT: "so, what the problem?" YG: "i can't get my network module to work properly. i use modprobe with netdev= and ..." OT: "huh? netdev? why don't you use ether=?" YG: "what's ether=?" OT: "what's netdev=?" followed by a confused conversation as to whether they really represent the same thing, or maybe not, or maybe mostly. if you want to keep the old way of doing it, that's cool. but it would be nice if, in cases like that, a clear choice was made. if you want to keep the old way, then *keep* it. make it clear that it's official, and supported. or if you're going to delete it, then *delete* it. but let's not keep doing this half-way, half-assed measure of tagging something as obsolete, then just letting it hang out in the kernel forever. either keep it, or delete it, and stop being so wishy-washy and doing things halfway. and, finally, while "there's more than one way to do it" may be a terrific perl philosophy, i don't think much of it as a kernel coding standard. anyway, my $0.02, for what little it's worth. rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA http://crashcourse.ca ========================================================================