From: Robin Holt <holt@sgi.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Robin Holt <holt@sgi.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Russ Anderson <rja@sgi.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v5 5/5] Make reboot_cpuid a kernel parameter.
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 20:25:39 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130418012539.GN3658@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <516F40C5.40409@zytor.com>
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 05:39:33PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 04/17/2013 05:17 PM, Robin Holt wrote:
> >
> > There are 4 items being parsed out of reboot= for x86:
> > - reboot_mode w[arm] | c[old]
> > - reboot_cpu s[mp]####
> > - reboot_type b[ios] | a[cpi] | k[bd] | t[riple] | e[fi] | p[ci]
> > - reboot_force f[orce]
> >
> > This seems like a lot to push into the generic kernel just to make it
> > appear consistent when there will be no real cross arch consistency.
> >
> > Contrast that with:
> > 1) New kernel parameter (reboot_cpu) which is clear and concise, uses standard
> > parsing methods.
> > 2) Backwards compatibility in that a user with an existing (broken) reboot=s32
> > on the command line will set reboot_cpu unless both were specified, in which
> > case reboot_cpu takes precedence.
> >
> > What is so fundamentally wrong with that? It accomplishes exactly what
> > you had asked for in that existing users are not broken. We are introducing
> > a new functionality in the general kernel. Why not introduce a new parameter
> > associated with that functionality.
> >
>
> You are confusing implementation with interface. That is what is so
> fundamentally wrong with that. You really, really don't want to change
> interface unless the world will end if you don't.
>
> As far as why centralize -- the main concern I have is that someone
> might try to introduce an arch-specific reboot= which is *syntactically*
> different, which is yet again really awful from a user perspective.
Yes and no. I am saying that the interface is garbage and already
specified as arch specific. You are asking me to take that garbage
interface and promote it to a general interface which will force us to
implement it in a completely crappy way.
Compare that with introducing a new interface which is concise and then
providing backwards compatibility. Add to that the fact, I don't need
to pollute the kernel with some poorly done x86 interface and leave that
cruft for others to clean up.
Thanks,
Robin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-04-18 1:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-04-17 18:43 [PATCH -v5 0/5] Shutdown from reboot_cpuid without stopping other cpus Robin Holt
2013-04-17 18:43 ` [PATCH -v5 1/5] CPU hotplug: Provide a generic helper to disable/enable CPU hotplug Robin Holt
2013-04-17 18:43 ` [PATCH -v5 2/5] Migrate shutdown/reboot to boot cpu Robin Holt
2013-04-17 18:43 ` [PATCH -v5 3/5] Move shutdown/reboot related functions to kernel/reboot.c Robin Holt
2013-04-17 18:43 ` [PATCH -v5 4/5] checkpatch.pl the new kernel/reboot.c file Robin Holt
2013-04-17 19:13 ` Robin Holt
2013-04-17 18:43 ` [PATCH -v5 5/5] Make reboot_cpuid a kernel parameter Robin Holt
2013-04-17 19:37 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-04-17 19:48 ` Robin Holt
2013-04-17 19:55 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-04-17 19:59 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-04-17 20:15 ` Robin Holt
2013-04-18 0:17 ` Robin Holt
2013-04-18 0:28 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-04-18 0:39 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-04-18 1:25 ` Robin Holt [this message]
2013-04-18 2:04 ` Robin Holt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130418012539.GN3658@sgi.com \
--to=holt@sgi.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=rja@sgi.com \
--cc=srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox