Matt Mackall wrote:
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.
That a fairly unique problem, and is most likely in a minority
application. For that case a CONFIG option to ignore the
firmware-provided command line would make sense. I do not believe it
should be the only option or even the default.
It would be particularly good if this could be standardized across
architectures, which is another reason to do it right.
-hpa
-
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]
