Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261456AbVA1Pqk (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Jan 2005 10:46:40 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261465AbVA1Pqk (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Jan 2005 10:46:40 -0500 Received: from bay-bridge.veritas.com ([143.127.3.10]:9357 "EHLO MTVMIME01.enterprise.veritas.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261456AbVA1Pqh (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Jan 2005 10:46:37 -0500 Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 15:46:05 +0000 (GMT) From: Hugh Dickins X-X-Sender: hugh@goblin.wat.veritas.com To: Andi Kleen cc: akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add CONFIG_X86_APIC_OFF for i386/UP In-Reply-To: <20050128151839.GI6703@wotan.suse.de> Message-ID: References: <20050128133927.GC6703@wotan.suse.de> <20050128143010.GE6703@wotan.suse.de> <20050128151839.GI6703@wotan.suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1560 Lines: 40 On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Andi Kleen wrote: > > Forgive me for not wading through the code, but it really needs to > > be spelt out in the comments: what's wrong with the existing kernel, > > with "noapic nolapic" in the distro's bootstring by default? > > It's harder to explain and traditionally in LILO you couldn't remove > any options (in grub you can now). And it's just that initial installation boot, via grub, which really matters. Thereafter can be edited, before perhaps switching to LILO. > I think it makes much more sense > to have an positive option for this too, not a negative one. I do agree that positives are easier to understand than negatives, and if it were some C variable I'd be arguing the same way. But we seem to have a long tradition of "no" boot options to disable features, and you're asking to reverse that tradition: fair enough, but let's be clear about that. Might be easiest to understand if every "no" has a no-"no". (But then where does the CONFIG come in?) > Also I must add my patch fixes real bugs in the code, not just > adding the new option. Good, but then they should be in a separate patch. > > I'm not going to be the only one confused by this! > > I think there is much more confusion in the current way. I'll shut up now, let's see what others think. Hugh - 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/