Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 28 Aug 2007 22:51:29 +0400 | Subject | Re: ok to kill "ether=" kernel parm? | From | Alexey Dobriyan <> |
| |
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 01:58:05PM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > > 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. > > i've never found these "well, it's not hurting anything" arguments > terribly compelling.
And? AFAICS, handler doesn't even print boot time warning message that ether= is obsoleted. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |