On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 12:07:02PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Matt Mackall wrote:
> >I'm resending this as-is because the earlier thread petered out
> >without any strong arguments against this approach. x86_64 patch to
> >follow.
>
> "No strong arguments?"
>
> I still maintain that this patch has the wrong priority in case more
> than one set of arguments are provided.
But you still haven't answered how that lets you work around firmware
that passes parameters you don't like.
--
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
