Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751960AbWCFRww (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Mar 2006 12:52:52 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751971AbWCFRww (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Mar 2006 12:52:52 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:17090 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751960AbWCFRwv (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Mar 2006 12:52:51 -0500 Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 12:52:38 -0500 From: Dave Jones To: Pavel Machek Cc: Michael Ellerman , "Darrick J. Wong" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Chris McDermott Subject: Re: [PATCH] leave APIC code inactive by default on i386 Message-ID: <20060306175238.GA15971@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Dave Jones , Pavel Machek , Michael Ellerman , "Darrick J. Wong" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Chris McDermott References: <43D03AF0.3040703@us.ibm.com> <20060301043353.GJ28434@redhat.com> <20060306125018.GA1673@elf.ucw.cz> <20060306171747.GN21445@redhat.com> <20060306174122.GA2716@elf.ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060306174122.GA2716@elf.ucw.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1331 Lines: 34 On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 06:41:22PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > Is adding "noapic nolapic" to default command line a big problem? > > For end-users, yes. People want things to 'just work', not have > > to find arcane commands to type in to make things work. > If distro puts "noapic nolapic" on kernel command line, I'd say users > are unlikely to remove it.. And if they do remove it and it breaks, > they'll only blame themselves... If distros put 'noapic nolapic' on the command line they've only themselves to blame when systems that need local apic for correct operation don't work. > One more config-option is also not "cheap" (half of users will get it > wrong), and having config-option to change command-line-default seems > wrong to me. > > [Well, you could add CONFIG_CMDLINE to i386, like arm has... that > solves more than just this problem...] I'm not arguing for extra command line options. The inverse, I want *no* command line options. What's so hard to understand about expecting something to just work? Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk - 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/