From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751594AbXJCExF (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Oct 2007 00:53:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751150AbXJCEwy (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Oct 2007 00:52:54 -0400 Received: from agminet01.oracle.com ([141.146.126.228]:10750 "EHLO agminet01.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753821AbXJCEww (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Oct 2007 00:52:52 -0400 Message-ID: <47030F98.8030901@oracle.com> Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 20:42:16 -0700 From: Randy Dunlap User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060719) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeff Garzik CC: ak@suse.de, LKML , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] Document x86-64 iommu kernel parameters References: <20071003013413.GA17717@havoc.gtf.org> <20071002192209.09b2fbda.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> <4702FEC7.3000000@garzik.org> In-Reply-To: <4702FEC7.3000000@garzik.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed 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 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. or maybe during the x86 merge, we can merge the docs also... -- ~Randy