Re: [PATCH] fix maxcpus=N parsing

[Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>]

On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 16:02 +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> Fix 61ec7567db103d537329b0db9a887db570431ff4: maxcpus=N is now having no
> effect on x86_64, and freezing bootup on i386 (because of inconsistency
> with the separate maxcpus parsing down in arch/i386, I guess).  That's
> because early_param parsing is a little different from __setup parsing,
> and needs the "=" omitted: then it seems to work as the original commit
> intended (no mention of IO-APIC in /proc/interrupts when maxcpus=0).
> 
> Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
> ---
> Sorry, I noticed this back in -mm, but got diverted by deeper mysteries.
> Cc'ed Rusty: I presume there's a good reason why early_param parsing is
> confusingly different, but he may know better and want to change it.

Yeah, early_param is modelled on module_param which does more than the
naive substring match of __setup.  There's a warning in the header IIRC.

The original intention wass that everything would move to
module_param-style parameters.  However __setup is still useful for
trivial core stuff.

> It's odd that i386 treats maxcpus=N differently from other architectures:
> on i386 it limits cpu_possible_map, on others it just limits what boots
> (then powersaved is liable to bring up the others on x86_64 - hmmm).

Indeed, it'd be nice to see this made uniform.

But this patch is fine.

Cheers,
Rusty.

-
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/