On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 05:17:23PM -0400, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > You haven't explain practical benefit of your opinion. As far as users have > no benefit, I'm never agree. Sorry. Umm... how about being more robust and actually useable to begin with? What's the benefit of panicking? Are you seriously saying that the admin / boot script can use the kernel boot param to tell the kernel to enable hotplug but can't check what nodes are hot unpluggable afterwards? The admin *needs* to check which nodes are hotpluggable no matter how this part is handled. How else is it gonna know which nodes are hotpluggable? Magic? There's no such rule as kernel param should make the kernel panic if it's not happy, so please take that out of your brain. It of course should be clear what the result of the kernel parameter is and panicking is the crudest way to do that which is good enough or even desriable in *some* cases. It is not the required behavior by any stretch of imgination, especially when the result of the parameter may change due to changing circumstances. That's an outright idiotic thing to do. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
