Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:52:02 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: 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.
| |