From: Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@intel.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@kernel.org>, <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Documentation: Merge x86-specific boot options doc into kernel-parameters.txt
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2024 15:15:12 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ad1ceef4-b98d-4fca-90b9-b9b09e311001@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241120211122.GDZz5QeheUP5thy_Zi@fat_crate.local>
On 11/20/2024 1:11 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 12:49:10PM -0800, Sohil Mehta wrote:
>> Instead of double tabs and <option>: <description>, would this be more
>> readable if the options and their descriptions are separated?
>
> Have you seen the rest of this file?
>
To clarify, I am not suggesting to have the description at less than 2
tab distance from the main command line option. It's just the
sub-option. It would still keep everything aligned with the rest of the
file.
mce=
<sub-option-1>
[Description - ...]
<sub-option-2>
[Description - ...]
I see quite a few places that do exactly as the above:
console=
console_msg_format=
earlycon=
hibernate=
intel_iommu=
io_delay=
pcie_*=
In some other cases such as pci=, mitigations=, spectre_v2_user= and
vsyscall= the sub-option is at a 1-2 tab distance and the description is
another 1-2 tabs from that.
Either way, in most places, I see the sub-option and description being
separated which is all I am requesting. (Pretty please?)
efi= and idle= has it similar to the way you have proposed for mce= but
I find it harder to read. (Maybe it's just me.)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-11-20 23:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-11-20 16:30 Borislav Petkov
2024-11-20 16:30 ` [PATCH 2/2] x86/apic: Remove "disablelapic" cmdline option Borislav Petkov
2024-11-20 19:46 ` [PATCH 1/2] Documentation: Merge x86-specific boot options doc into kernel-parameters.txt Sohil Mehta
2024-11-20 21:15 ` Borislav Petkov
2024-11-20 20:49 ` Sohil Mehta
2024-11-20 21:11 ` Borislav Petkov
2024-11-20 23:15 ` Sohil Mehta [this message]
2024-12-02 19:00 Borislav Petkov
2024-12-02 19:59 ` Sohil Mehta
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=ad1ceef4-b98d-4fca-90b9-b9b09e311001@intel.com \
--to=sohil.mehta@intel.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=bp@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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®