From: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com>
To: Rogan Dawes <lists@dawes.za.net>
Cc: David Newall <david@davidnewall.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: stripping down the kernel-parameters.txt file
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:44:29 -0400 (EDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709121034450.25084@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <46E7F816.9080806@dawes.za.net>
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, Rogan Dawes wrote:
> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > p.s. by "basic", i mean those boot-time parms defined by either
> > "__setup()" or "early_param()". which means that module writers
> > should, as much as possible, stop using those macros to define
> > command-line parameters for their modules. that would go a long
> > way to restoring some order, and allowing for some decent and
> > readable documentation.
>
> Are you forgetting that modules can often be compiled into the
> bzImage, too, making them genuine boot-time params?
<sarcasm>
really? no way. get outta town.
</sarcasm>
sorry, but there was no way i could resist that. :-) *of course* i
realize that. *all* of those things (__setup, early_param, actual
module params) are potential entries on the kernel line at boot time,
depending on your particular configuration.
all i'm suggesting is that there is an obvious distinction between
those that are defined using __setup() or early_param(), and those
that are actual module parameters. and that it would make more sense
to keep them separate, even if only separating them within the same
text file.
in the end, there should be a nice, *short* reference for what i
like to call "basic" kernel parms (defined by __setup() or
early_param()), while anyone who wants to learn about any
module-specific parms should then have to go look up the info for that
given module, that's all.
as a trivial starting point, this would involve nothing more than
shifting current content around in kernel-parameters.txt, putting the
basic stuff at the top, and the module-specific stuff after that.
heck, that would even give module authors the chance to add a line or
two of module description if they wanted. how does life get any
better than that?
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
http://crashcourse.ca
========================================================================
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-09-12 14:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-09-12 7:50 Robert P. J. Day
2007-09-12 12:43 ` David Newall
2007-09-12 13:11 ` Robert P. J. Day
2007-09-12 13:32 ` David Newall
2007-09-12 14:06 ` Robert P. J. Day
2007-09-12 14:30 ` Rogan Dawes
2007-09-12 14:44 ` Robert P. J. Day [this message]
2007-09-12 17:47 ` Kyle Moffett
2007-09-12 17:56 ` Randy Dunlap
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.64.0709121034450.25084@localhost.localdomain \
--to=rpjday@mindspring.com \
--cc=david@davidnewall.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lists@dawes.za.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®