Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758157AbXILNNS (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:13:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751773AbXILNNH (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:13:07 -0400 Received: from nic.NetDirect.CA ([216.16.235.2]:54061 "EHLO rubicon.netdirect.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751179AbXILNNG (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:13:06 -0400 X-Originating-Ip: 72.143.66.27 Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:11:01 -0400 (EDT) From: "Robert P. J. Day" X-X-Sender: rpjday@localhost.localdomain To: David Newall cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: stripping down the kernel-parameters.txt file In-Reply-To: <46E7DEF8.50201@davidnewall.com> Message-ID: References: <46E7DEF8.50201@davidnewall.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Net-Direct-Inc-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-Net-Direct-Inc-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-Net-Direct-Inc-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-16.8, required 5, autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED -1.80, BAYES_00 -15.00, INIT_RECVD_OUR_AUTH -20.00, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL 20.00) X-Net-Direct-Inc-MailScanner-From: rpjday@mindspring.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2117 Lines: 49 On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, David Newall wrote: > Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > while killing some time between compiles and ridding the > > kernel-parameters.txt file of out-of-date or incorrect cruft, it > > occurs to me that that file is borderline valueless since it > > apparently tries to document every possible boot-time parameter, > > including those associated with individual modules. that's just > > silly. > > "Silly" is such a negative word. I think it's aspirational. It > probably can't be achieved, but that's no reason to give up, nor to > remove existing text. if the goal is to simply put all of the basic boot-time kernel parms along with the module-specific ones into a single file, sorted in alphabetical order, then i contend that this is, in fact, "silly". the end result would be a somewhat chaotic mess since i think it's clear that those "basic" kernel parms (as i call them) are qualitatively different from the module-specific ones, and should be segregated as such. now, if they're still going to go into a single file, it *would* make sense to put the basic ones at the top and, following that, the module-specific ones, one module at a time. *that* would make perfect sense. but to mix them as they are now doesn't. rday p.s. by "basic", i mean those boot-time parms defined by either "__setup()" or "early_param()". which means that module writers should, as much as possible, stop using those macros to define command-line parameters for their modules. that would go a long way to restoring some order, and allowing for some decent and readable documentation. -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA http://crashcourse.ca ======================================================================== - 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/