lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: x86: memtest bootparam
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 17:17:44 GMT
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> wrote:

> Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=c64df70793a9c344874eb4af19f85e0662d2d3ee
> Commit: c64df70793a9c344874eb4af19f85e0662d2d3ee
> Parent: 9b967106da0357ef8b08847dce35584a04134f20
> Author: Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel.send@gmail.com>
> AuthorDate: Fri Mar 21 18:56:19 2008 -0700
> Committer: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> CommitDate: Thu Apr 17 17:41:21 2008 +0200
>
> x86: memtest bootparam
>
> ...
>
>
> + memtest= [KNL,X86_64] Enable memtest
> + Format: <integer>
> + range: 0,4 : pattern number
> + default : 0 <disable>

OK. Did the new memtest feature get documented anywhere, btw? I'm only
vaguely aware of its existence.

>
> +config MEMTEST_BOOTPARAM
> + bool "Memtest boot parameter"
> + depends on X86_64
> + default y
> + help
> + This option adds a kernel parameter 'memtest', which allows memtest
> + to be disabled at boot. If this option is selected, memtest
> + functionality can be disabled with memtest=0 on the kernel
> + command line. The purpose of this option is to allow a single
> + kernel image to be distributed with memtest built in, but not
> + necessarily enabled.
> +
> + If you are unsure how to answer this question, answer Y.
> +
> +config MEMTEST_BOOTPARAM_VALUE
> + int "Memtest boot parameter default value (0-4)"
> + depends on MEMTEST_BOOTPARAM
> + range 0 4
> + default 0
> + help
> + This option sets the default value for the kernel parameter
> + 'memtest', which allows memtest to be disabled at boot. If this
> + option is set to 0 (zero), the memtest kernel parameter will
> + default to 0, disabling memtest at bootup. If this option is
> + set to 4, the memtest kernel parameter will default to 4,
> + enabling memtest at bootup, and use that as pattern number.
> +
> + If you are unsure how to answer this question, answer 0.

These seem pointless. Why not just unconditionally implement memtest=?
All the code for that should be __init anyway so we're hardly saving
anything here.




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-18 23:55    [W:0.094 / U:0.584 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site