From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752200AbXJCEDO (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Oct 2007 00:03:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750922AbXJCEDA (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Oct 2007 00:03:00 -0400 Received: from agminet01.oracle.com ([141.146.126.228]:55555 "EHLO agminet01.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750891AbXJCEC7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Oct 2007 00:02:59 -0400 Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 21:01:25 -0700 From: Randy Dunlap To: Jeff Garzik Cc: ak@suse.de, LKML , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] Document x86-64 iommu kernel parameters Message-Id: <20071002210125.85b84add.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> In-Reply-To: <4702FEC7.3000000@garzik.org> References: <20071003013413.GA17717@havoc.gtf.org> <20071002192209.09b2fbda.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> <4702FEC7.3000000@garzik.org> Organization: Oracle Linux Eng. X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.6 (GTK+ 2.8.10; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Whitelist: TRUE X-Whitelist: TRUE Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 22:30:31 -0400 Jeff Garzik wrote: > Randy Dunlap wrote: > > On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 21:34:13 -0400 Jeff Garzik wrote: > > > >> Signed-off-by: Jeff Garzik > >> --- > >> After having to go figure out what some of these means, I figured I > >> would save others the trouble. > >> > >> Some of these are "best guess" based on a quick scan of the code, so it > >> certainly needs a sanity review before going upstream. > > > > "iommu" is listed in Documentation/x86_64/boot-options.txt > > along with more x86_64-specific boot options. > > A few other arches do something similar... > > Ah! Well, seeing as how we already have a provision for arch-specific > options in kernel-parameters.txt, and some less-obscure arch-specific > options can be found there, I think an argument can be made for my patch :) > > Nonethless, if the maintainer disagrees, they can drop this patch I suppose. [sorry if there be duplicates; I thought I sent this but can't find it anywhere] Maybe we can/should merge the doc files along with the x86 arch merge. --- ~Randy