'noacpi' isn't a standalone parameter, give it its prefix.
Signed-off-by: Dave Jones <[email protected]>
diff --git a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
index 4d175c7..a87bc58 100644
--- a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
+++ b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
@@ -863,6 +863,10 @@ and is between 256 and 4096 characters. It is defined in the file
lasi= [HW,SCSI] PARISC LASI driver for the 53c700 chip
Format: addr:<io>,irq:<irq>
+ libata.noacpi [LIBATA] Disables use of ACPI in libata suspend/resume
+ when set.
+ Format: <int>
+
load_ramdisk= [RAM] List of ramdisks to load from floppy
See Documentation/ramdisk.txt.
@@ -1079,10 +1083,6 @@ and is between 256 and 4096 characters. It is defined in the file
emulation library even if a 387 maths coprocessor
is present.
- noacpi [LIBATA] Disables use of ACPI in libata suspend/resume
- when set.
- Format: <int>
-
noaliencache [MM, NUMA, SLAB] Disables the allocation of alien
caches in the slab allocator. Saves per-node memory,
but will impact performance.
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, Dave Jones wrote:
> 'noacpi' isn't a standalone parameter, give it its prefix.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dave Jones <[email protected]>
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
> index 4d175c7..a87bc58 100644
> --- a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
> @@ -863,6 +863,10 @@ and is between 256 and 4096 characters. It is defined in the file
> lasi= [HW,SCSI] PARISC LASI driver for the 53c700 chip
> Format: addr:<io>,irq:<irq>
>
> + libata.noacpi [LIBATA] Disables use of ACPI in libata suspend/resume
> + when set.
> + Format: <int>
> +
if you're going to add that libata-related parm to the kernel parms
file, wouldn't it make sense for consistency to add the other
available boot-time parms from libata-core.c as well? it seems
counter-productive to document only a subset of them from the same
source file.
rday
p.s. as i think i've mentioned before, i'd prefer to see that entire
kernel-parameters.txt file reorganized, where the basic boot time
parms are at the top, followed by module specific parameters *after*
that, in alphabetical order by module name. i think that would make
far more sense.
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
http://crashcourse.ca
========================================================================
> if you're going to add that libata-related parm to the kernel parms
> file, wouldn't it make sense for consistency to add the other
> available boot-time parms from libata-core.c as well? it seems
> counter-productive to document only a subset of them from the same
> source file.
He's not adding it - he's correcting a bug
Dave Jones wrote:
> 'noacpi' isn't a standalone parameter, give it its prefix.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dave Jones <[email protected]>
applied
(though in general we should not list module parameters here, I am OK
with this one)