From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter P Waskiewicz Jr Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] [arch-x86] Allow SRAT integrity check to be skipped Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 12:39:00 -0700 Message-ID: <1283456340.28591.23.camel@pjaxe> References: <20100901225937.18457.16372.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <1283427192.3793.100.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "tglx@linutronix.de" , "mingo@redhat.com" , "hpa@zytor.com" , "x86@kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "andi@firstfloor.org" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" To: Johannes Berg Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1283427192.3793.100.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 04:33 -0700, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 15:59 -0700, Peter P Waskiewicz Jr wrote: > > > +static int srat_bypass_bios; > > + > > +static int __init srat_bypass_bios_setup(char *str) > > +{ > > + srat_bypass_bios = 1; > > + return 0; > > +} > > +early_param("sratbypassbios", srat_bypass_bios_setup); > > + > > /* Use the information discovered above to actually set up the nodes. */ > > int __init acpi_scan_nodes(unsigned long start, unsigned long end) > > { > > I wonder, since all the things using the variable are __init, could it > be as well? Just curious really. That is a good question. It makes sense to me, but I just followed what other boot-time options did, which are not marked __init. I'll defer to anyone else on the list who is better-equipped to answer that. -PJ