On Tuesday 16 October 2007 18:17, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Oct 16 2007 18:07, Nick Piggin wrote:
> >Changed. But it will hopefully just completely replace rd.c,
> >so I will probably just rename it to rd.c at some point (and
> >change .config options to stay compatible). Unless someone
> >sees a problem with that?
>
> I do not see a problem with keeping brd either.
Just doesn't seem to be any point in making it a new and different
module, assuming it can support exactly the same semantics. I'm
only doing so in these first diffs so that they are easier to read
and also easier to do a side by side comparison / builds with the
old rd.c
> >> It also does not seem needed, since it did not exist before.
> >> It should go, you can set the variable with brd.rd_nr=XXX (same
> >> goes for ramdisk_size).
> >
> >But only if it's a module?
>
> Attributes always work. Try vt.default_red=0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
> and you will see.
Ah, nice. (I don't use them much!). Still, backward compat I
think is needed if we are to replace rd.c.
-
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]
