On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 05:25:16PM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> The purpose of this series is to improve and enhance the
> handling of kernel boot arguments.
>
> It is first focussed on powerpc but also extends the capability
> for other arches.
>
> This is based on suggestion from Daniel Walker <[email protected]>
>
I don't see a point in your changes at this time. My changes are much more
mature, and you changes don't really make improvements.
Daniel
+Will D
On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 11:36 AM Daniel Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 05:25:16PM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> > The purpose of this series is to improve and enhance the
> > handling of kernel boot arguments.
> >
> > It is first focussed on powerpc but also extends the capability
> > for other arches.
> >
> > This is based on suggestion from Daniel Walker <[email protected]>
> >
>
>
> I don't see a point in your changes at this time. My changes are much more
> mature, and you changes don't really make improvements.
Not really a helpful comment. What we merge here will be from whomever
is persistent and timely in their efforts. But please, work together
on a common solution.
This one meets my requirements of moving the kconfig and code out of
the arches, supports prepend/append, and is up to date.
Rob
On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 08:01:01PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> +Will D
>
> On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 11:36 AM Daniel Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 05:25:16PM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> > > The purpose of this series is to improve and enhance the
> > > handling of kernel boot arguments.
> > >
> > > It is first focussed on powerpc but also extends the capability
> > > for other arches.
> > >
> > > This is based on suggestion from Daniel Walker <[email protected]>
> > >
> >
> >
> > I don't see a point in your changes at this time. My changes are much more
> > mature, and you changes don't really make improvements.
>
> Not really a helpful comment. What we merge here will be from whomever
> is persistent and timely in their efforts. But please, work together
> on a common solution.
>
> This one meets my requirements of moving the kconfig and code out of
> the arches, supports prepend/append, and is up to date.
Maintainers are capable of merging whatever they want to merge. However, I
wouldn't make hasty choices. The changes I've been submitting have been deployed
on millions of router instances and are more feature rich.
I believe I worked with you on this change, or something like it,
https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/3/19/970
I don't think Christophe has even addressed this. I've converted many
architectures, and Cisco uses my changes on at least 4 different
architecture. With products deployed and tested.
I will resubmit my changes as soon as I can.
Daniel
Le 03/03/2021 à 18:39, Daniel Walker a écrit :
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 08:01:01PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
>> +Will D
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 11:36 AM Daniel Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 05:25:16PM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>>> The purpose of this series is to improve and enhance the
>>>> handling of kernel boot arguments.
>>>>
>>>> It is first focussed on powerpc but also extends the capability
>>>> for other arches.
>>>>
>>>> This is based on suggestion from Daniel Walker <[email protected]>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't see a point in your changes at this time. My changes are much more
>>> mature, and you changes don't really make improvements.
>>
>> Not really a helpful comment. What we merge here will be from whomever
>> is persistent and timely in their efforts. But please, work together
>> on a common solution.
>>
>> This one meets my requirements of moving the kconfig and code out of
>> the arches, supports prepend/append, and is up to date.
>
>
> Maintainers are capable of merging whatever they want to merge. However, I
> wouldn't make hasty choices. The changes I've been submitting have been deployed
> on millions of router instances and are more feature rich.
>
> I believe I worked with you on this change, or something like it,
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/3/19/970
>
> I don't think Christophe has even addressed this.
I thing I have, see
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/patch/3b4291271ce4af4941a771e5af5cbba3c8fa1b2a.1614705851.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu/
If you see something missing in that patch, can you tell me.
> I've converted many
> architectures, and Cisco uses my changes on at least 4 different
> architecture. With products deployed and tested.
As far as we know, only powerpc was converted in the last series you submitted, see
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/list/?series=98106&state=*
>
> I will resubmit my changes as soon as I can.
>
Christophe