Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 15:29:48 -0700
From: David VomLehn <dvomlehn@cisco.com>
To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-embedded@vger.kernel.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Patch] Wait for console to become available, ver 3
Message-ID: <20090420222948.GA11068@cuplxvomd02.corp.sa.net>
References: <20090420143010.697c7380.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0904201744410.6832-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0904201744410.6832-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1206
Lines: 25

> Personally, I'm in favor of adding a boot parameter.  Things could be 
> simplified slightly by treating a negative value (or a missing value) 
> as indicating an infinite timeout; then only one new parameter would be 
> needed instead of two.

I'm allergic to the idea of a user interface using negative one to mean
infinity. It's an bizzare idea that makes sense only to programming
wankers. Such as ourselves. Having a missing value mean infinitity is a
not whole lot better.

I do agree with the idea of adding one boot parameter rather than two. How
about keeping the consoledelay parameter, but allow it to either take a
string, such as "forever", or an integer, which is the number of milliseconds
to delay?  I think that will make sense to a lot more people.

Note that, as far as the implementation goes, using a -1 to mean an infinite
wait may very well make sense. I just don't think it makes sense where decent
people can see it.
--
David VomLehn
--
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/