From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Don Slutz Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] cmdline_parse: Also pass bool_assert to OPT_CUSTOM so that parse_bool can be used correctly. Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 16:30:19 -0400 Message-ID: <53D6B2DB.4080604@terremark.com> References: <1406563175-23761-1-git-send-email-dslutz@verizon.com> <1406563175-23761-2-git-send-email-dslutz@verizon.com> <53D691420200007800026CAD@mail.emea.novell.com> <53D68488.3060204@terremark.com> <53D6A23A.5020702@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <53D6A23A.5020702@gmail.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Keir Fraser , Don Slutz Cc: Tim Deegan , Keir Fraser , Jan Beulich , Liu Jinsong , Christoph Egger , Ian Jackson , xen-devel@lists.xen.org, Aravind Gopalakrishnan , Suravee Suthikulpanit , Stefano Stabellini , Ian Campbell List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 07/28/14 15:19, Keir Fraser wrote: > Don Slutz wrote: >>> This adding of a new parameter to all custom parameter parsers, >>> with rarely any actually using it is a no-go as far as I'm concerned. >>> That said, being of boolean type, this would need to be bool_t >>> anyway. >> >> I considered adding a new custom type, but when this way. I would think >> that if a custom parameter parser is ignoring the "no-" (which they >> all do) >> they should be reporting on it. >> >> I.E. "no-lapic" currently means "lapic" and "no-nolapic" means "nolapic" >> with out any message to that effect. > > The better fix here would be to reject options such as "no-lapic" as > invalid. This could be done within cmdline_parse() by rejecting > matches on anything other than OPT_{BOOL,INVBOOL} options if optkey > has a "no-" prefix. > I read this as reject "no-" prefix for all custom parameters. Not sure which way to go. Jan says (on a different thread): >>> On 28.07.14 at 18:18, wrote: > The simpler case of no-console_timestamps no longer works also. Which I believe would be made work by faking up a "no" string when calling the custom handler, without touching dozens of files. Jan I was reading this as "no-lapic" is the same as "lapic=no". I can reject "no-lapic=no" (or any other "=")for custom parameters (since commit 6328e728f6d6589a10d7e9f97a47f566f63743c2 Author: Andrew Cooper Date: Mon Sep 3 11:22:00 2012 +0100 docs/command line: Clarify the behavior with invalid input. ) says that: Explicitly specifying any value other than those listed above is undefined, as is stacking a `no-` prefix with an explicit value. -Don Slutz > Adding a bool parameter to every custom parameter parser is not really > going to fly. > > -- Keir