From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
To: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: ok to kill "ether=" kernel parm?
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 10:23:14 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <46D45A02.6010306@zytor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708281300030.18151@localhost.localdomain>
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-08-28 17:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-08-28 7:08 ok to kill "ether=" kernel parm? Robert P. J. Day
2007-08-28 16:45 ` H. Peter Anvin
2007-08-28 17:03 ` Robert P. J. Day
2007-08-28 17:23 ` H. Peter Anvin [this message]
2007-08-28 17:58 ` Robert P. J. Day
2007-08-28 18:51 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2007-08-29 14:35 ` Denys Vlasenko
2007-08-29 14:28 ` Robert P. J. Day
2007-08-28 18:12 ` Jan Engelhardt
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2007-08-28 18:43 H. Peter Anvin
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=46D45A02.6010306@zytor.com \
--to=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rpjday@mindspring.com \
/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