In message <Pine.SOL.4.30.0305101735410.20755-100000@mion.elka.pw.edu.pl> you w
rite:
>
> Hi,
>
> I've redone this patch. I've tested it and works okay for me.
> It is as minimal as possible and I hope it can go in 2.5 soon.
Only one request, that you push this slightly more, and make
setup_arch() call parse_early_args(). Does that break something?
That way the arch-specific parsing in setup_arch() can be converted to
__setup (but doesn't need to be: archs can take their time).
ie. we already have two-stage parsing, it'd be nice not to make it
three.
Minor nitpick:
> @@ -241,7 +279,7 @@ static int __init unknown_bootoption(cha
> val[-1] = '=';
>
> /* Handle obsolete-style parameters */
> - if (obsolete_checksetup(param))
> + if (obsolete_test_checksetup(param))
> return 0;
>
Change comment to /* Ignore early params: already done in
parse_early_args */ or something, and maybe rename
obsolete_test_checksetup() to is_early_setup().
Thanks!
Rusty.
-- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 15 2003 - 22:00:38 EST