From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 18:38:41 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 18:38:31 -0500 Received: from ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com ([166.70.28.69]:13620 "EHLO frodo.biederman.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 18:38:25 -0500 To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: torvalds@transmeta.com, marcelo@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux/i386 boot protocol version 2.03 In-Reply-To: <200112090922.BAA11252@tazenda.transmeta.com> <3C13DD48.3070206@zytor.com> <3C13F021.3080307@zytor.com> From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: 09 Dec 2001 16:18:24 -0700 In-Reply-To: <3C13F021.3080307@zytor.com> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1 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 "H. Peter Anvin" writes: > Allowing unneeded options in protocols is a source of bugs. You seem to think > this is a good idea, it's not. I think it is more that we disagree on what are unneeded options, and what kinds of bugs happen. Additionally there are issues with which things are mandatory, and which things are recommended behavior, in our communications. I think we agree on goals of getting the booting as simple as error free as possible. Beyond that it looks like our world views are so different we do not successfully communicate, so unless I have code or a specific case that needs fixing, I will not try. Eric