public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

  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