ok to kill "ether=" kernel parm?

ok to kill "ether=" kernel parm?

[Robert P. J. Day]

  given that "ether=" has been officially obsolete since 2.6.18
(replaced by "netdev="), is there any reason to keep it around?  or
can it be blasted?

rday

-- 
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA

http://crashcourse.ca
========================================================================

Re: ok to kill "ether=" kernel parm?

[H. Peter Anvin]

Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>   given that "ether=" has been officially obsolete since 2.6.18
> (replaced by "netdev="), is there any reason to keep it around?  or
> can it be blasted?

That sounds like way too short of a timeline for breaking people's
working boot setup.  For a lot of people, 2.6.18->current is going to be
a single step.

	-hpa

Re: ok to kill "ether=" kernel parm?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >   given that "ether=" has been officially obsolete since 2.6.18
> > (replaced by "netdev="), is there any reason to keep it around?
> > or can it be blasted?
>
> That sounds like way too short of a timeline for breaking people's
> working boot setup.  For a lot of people, 2.6.18->current is going
> to be a single step.

actually, now that i look more closely at the code browser at
lxr.linux.no, "ether=" has been listed as "obsolete" since *at least*
2.6.10.  not to sound unsympathetic but anyone who tries to jump from
2.6.10 to 2.6.24 in one step deserves what they get.  :-)

ok, that was cruel, but you see my point, right?

rday
-- 
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA

http://crashcourse.ca
========================================================================

Re: ok to kill "ether=" kernel parm?

[H. Peter Anvin]

Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> 
>> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>>>   given that "ether=" has been officially obsolete since 2.6.18
>>> (replaced by "netdev="), is there any reason to keep it around?
>>> or can it be blasted?
>> That sounds like way too short of a timeline for breaking people's
>> working boot setup.  For a lot of people, 2.6.18->current is going
>> to be a single step.
> 
> actually, now that i look more closely at the code browser at
> lxr.linux.no, "ether=" has been listed as "obsolete" since *at least*
> 2.6.10.  not to sound unsympathetic but anyone who tries to jump from
> 2.6.10 to 2.6.24 in one step deserves what they get.  :-)
> 
> ok, that was cruel, but you see my point, right?

Yes, and I think it's quite pointless.

The thing is, people's boot setups have probably been that way since
*long* before 2.6.9.  They continue to work, as they should, so they
aren't changed.  This is why we very rarely break boot interfaces (and
this is a user-visible interface you're talking about); we're still
supporting interfaces that have been obsolete *SINCE BEFORE 1.0 WAS
RELEASED.*

What's the upside of changing?  What's the downside?  The upside is so
infinitesimal that that leaving "ether=" in indefinitely seems like a
good move to me.

	-hpa

Re: ok to kill "ether=" kernel parm?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >
> >> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >>>   given that "ether=" has been officially obsolete since 2.6.18
> >>> (replaced by "netdev="), is there any reason to keep it around?
> >>> or can it be blasted?
> >> That sounds like way too short of a timeline for breaking people's
> >> working boot setup.  For a lot of people, 2.6.18->current is going
> >> to be a single step.
> >
> > actually, now that i look more closely at the code browser at
> > lxr.linux.no, "ether=" has been listed as "obsolete" since *at least*
> > 2.6.10.  not to sound unsympathetic but anyone who tries to jump from
> > 2.6.10 to 2.6.24 in one step deserves what they get.  :-)
> >
> > ok, that was cruel, but you see my point, right?
>
> Yes, and I think it's quite pointless.
>
> The thing is, people's boot setups have probably been that way since
> *long* before 2.6.9.  They continue to work, as they should, so they
> aren't changed.  This is why we very rarely break boot interfaces
> (and this is a user-visible interface you're talking about); we're
> still supporting interfaces that have been obsolete *SINCE BEFORE
> 1.0 WAS RELEASED.*
>
> What's the upside of changing?  What's the downside?  The upside is
> so infinitesimal that that leaving "ether=" in indefinitely seems
> like a good move to me.

i've never found these "well, it's not hurting anything" arguments
terribly compelling.  if that's the case, why remove *anything* from
the kernel?  why obsolete *anything*?  but that's not my actual point.

why continue to support two different ways to do the same thing?  in
situations like that, i can imagine the following (admittedly
hypothetical) conversation between old-timer and young geek:

OT:  "so, what the problem?"
YG:  "i can't get my network module to work properly.  i use modprobe
with netdev= and ..."
OT:  "huh?  netdev?  why don't you use ether=?"
YG:  "what's ether=?"
OT:  "what's netdev=?"

followed by a confused conversation as to whether they really
represent the same thing, or maybe not, or maybe mostly.

if you want to keep the old way of doing it, that's cool.  but it
would be nice if, in cases like that, a clear choice was made.  if you
want to keep the old way, then *keep* it.  make it clear that it's
official, and supported.

or if you're going to delete it, then *delete* it.  but let's not keep
doing this half-way, half-assed measure of tagging something as
obsolete, then just letting it hang out in the kernel forever.  either
keep it, or delete it, and stop being so wishy-washy and doing things
halfway.

and, finally, while "there's more than one way to do it" may be a
terrific perl philosophy, i don't think much of it as a kernel coding
standard.

anyway, my $0.02, for what little it's worth.

rday
-- 
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA

http://crashcourse.ca
========================================================================

Re: ok to kill "ether=" kernel parm?

[Alexey Dobriyan]

On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 01:58:05PM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> 
> > Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > > On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > >
> > >> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > >>>   given that "ether=" has been officially obsolete since 2.6.18
> > >>> (replaced by "netdev="), is there any reason to keep it around?
> > >>> or can it be blasted?
> > >> That sounds like way too short of a timeline for breaking people's
> > >> working boot setup.  For a lot of people, 2.6.18->current is going
> > >> to be a single step.
> > >
> > > actually, now that i look more closely at the code browser at
> > > lxr.linux.no, "ether=" has been listed as "obsolete" since *at least*
> > > 2.6.10.  not to sound unsympathetic but anyone who tries to jump from
> > > 2.6.10 to 2.6.24 in one step deserves what they get.  :-)
> > >
> > > ok, that was cruel, but you see my point, right?
> >
> > Yes, and I think it's quite pointless.
> >
> > The thing is, people's boot setups have probably been that way since
> > *long* before 2.6.9.  They continue to work, as they should, so they
> > aren't changed.  This is why we very rarely break boot interfaces
> > (and this is a user-visible interface you're talking about); we're
> > still supporting interfaces that have been obsolete *SINCE BEFORE
> > 1.0 WAS RELEASED.*
> >
> > What's the upside of changing?  What's the downside?  The upside is
> > so infinitesimal that that leaving "ether=" in indefinitely seems
> > like a good move to me.
> 
> i've never found these "well, it's not hurting anything" arguments
> terribly compelling.

And? AFAICS, handler doesn't even print boot time warning message that
ether= is obsoleted.

Re: ok to kill "ether=" kernel parm?

[Denys Vlasenko]

On Tuesday 28 August 2007 18:58, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > > On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > >> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > >>>   given that "ether=" has been officially obsolete since 2.6.18
> > >>> (replaced by "netdev="), is there any reason to keep it around?
> > >>> or can it be blasted?
> > >>
> > >> That sounds like way too short of a timeline for breaking people's
> > >> working boot setup.  For a lot of people, 2.6.18->current is going
> > >> to be a single step.
> > >
> > > actually, now that i look more closely at the code browser at
> > > lxr.linux.no, "ether=" has been listed as "obsolete" since *at least*
> > > 2.6.10.  not to sound unsympathetic but anyone who tries to jump from
> > > 2.6.10 to 2.6.24 in one step deserves what they get.  :-)
> > >
> > > ok, that was cruel, but you see my point, right?
> >
> > Yes, and I think it's quite pointless.
> >
> > The thing is, people's boot setups have probably been that way since
> > *long* before 2.6.9.  They continue to work, as they should, so they
> > aren't changed.  This is why we very rarely break boot interfaces
> > (and this is a user-visible interface you're talking about); we're
> > still supporting interfaces that have been obsolete *SINCE BEFORE
> > 1.0 WAS RELEASED.*
> >
> > What's the upside of changing?  What's the downside?  The upside is
> > so infinitesimal that that leaving "ether=" in indefinitely seems
> > like a good move to me.
>
> i've never found these "well, it's not hurting anything" arguments
> terribly compelling.  if that's the case, why remove *anything* from
> the kernel?  why obsolete *anything*?  but that's not my actual point.
>
> why continue to support two different ways to do the same thing?  in
> situations like that, i can imagine the following (admittedly
> hypothetical) conversation between old-timer and young geek:
>
> OT:  "so, what the problem?"
> YG:  "i can't get my network module to work properly.  i use modprobe
> with netdev= and ..."
> OT:  "huh?  netdev?  why don't you use ether=?"
> YG:  "what's ether=?"
> OT:  "what's netdev=?"
>
> followed by a confused conversation as to whether they really
> represent the same thing, or maybe not, or maybe mostly.
>
> if you want to keep the old way of doing it, that's cool.  but it
> would be nice if, in cases like that, a clear choice was made.  if you
> want to keep the old way, then *keep* it.  make it clear that it's
> official, and supported.
>
> or if you're going to delete it, then *delete* it.  but let's not keep
> doing this half-way, half-assed measure of tagging something as
> obsolete, then just letting it hang out in the kernel forever.  either
> keep it, or delete it, and stop being so wishy-washy and doing things
> halfway.
>
> and, finally, while "there's more than one way to do it" may be a
> terrific perl philosophy, i don't think much of it as a kernel coding
> standard.

Add a printk("Deprecated, use netdev=xxx\n"); to the handler.
After 1-2 years you can remove ether=xxx.
--
vda

Re: ok to kill "ether=" kernel parm?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Denys Vlasenko wrote:

> Add a printk("Deprecated, use netdev=xxx\n"); to the handler.
> After 1-2 years you can remove ether=xxx.

actually, i was just about to do that, along the lines of what was
done with "time" -> "printk.time".  coming soonish.

rday
-- 
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA

http://crashcourse.ca
========================================================================

Re: ok to kill "ether=" kernel parm?

[Jan Engelhardt]

On Aug 28 2007 10:23, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
>What's the upside of changing?  What's the downside?  The upside is so
>infinitesimal that that leaving "ether=" in indefinitely seems like a
>good move to me.

Then why did it change to netdev= in the first place...



	Jan
-- 

RE: ok to kill "ether=" kernel parm?

[H. Peter Anvin]

It changed to be more descriptive.  The old one is supported for backwards compatibility, just like we have sys_oldoldstat still.

(sent front cellphone) 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@computergmbh.de>
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 11:12
To: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@mindspring.com>; Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: ok to kill "ether=" kernel parm?


On Aug 28 2007 10:23, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
>What's the upside of changing?  What's the downside?  The upside is so
>infinitesimal that that leaving "ether=" in indefinitely seems like a
>good move to me.

Then why did it change to netdev= in the first place...



	Jan
--