Hello,
Sorry for the delay - last weeks were a bit hectic for me (and nothing
will change till Friday when I'm off for holiday! :-)
On Thu, 2011-12-01 at 02:06 +0000, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > Yes, this was my initial idea as well. The only problem I faced is the
> > fact that there is no "between levels"... It's easy to add parameters
> > parsing _at_ any particular level, but hard to do this _after_ level A
> > and _before_ level B. The initcalls section simply contains all the
> > calls, ordered by the level - the only "separated" level is the pre-SMP
> > early one. And order within one level is determined by the link order,
> > so I can't guarantee parsing the parameters as the first call of a level
> > (nor as the last call of the previous level).
>
> Yeah, that's why I suggested changing the linker script.
Sounded a bit scary, but turned out to be much less intrusive that I
expected... I'll post the proposal in a second.
> > /* This is the fundamental function for registering boot/module
> > parameters. */
> > -#define __module_param_call(prefix, name, ops, arg, isbool, perm) \
> > +#define __module_param_call(prefix, name, ops, arg, isbool, late, perm) \
> > /* Default value instead of permissions? */ \
> > static int __param_perm_check_##name __attribute__((unused)) = \
> > BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO((perm) < 0 || (perm) > 0777 || ((perm) & 2)) \
>
> Might as well change isbool to "flags", since we have to fix callers
> anyway.
Sure thing, done.
> > diff --git a/init/main.c b/init/main.c
> > index 217ed23..ce89a53 100644
> > --- a/init/main.c
> > +++ b/init/main.c
> > @@ -407,7 +407,7 @@ static int __init do_early_param(char *param, char *val)
> >
> > void __init parse_early_options(char *cmdline)
> > {
> > - parse_args("early options", cmdline, NULL, 0, do_early_param);
> > + parse_args("early options", cmdline, NULL, 0, 0, 0, do_early_param);
>
> It'd be nice to replace the early param stuff too, but that's probably a
> separate patch. As is getting rid of the old __setup() calls everywhere
> ;)
I promise to look into it next year ;-)
> But so far, it looks good!
Cool, have a look at the patches following this mail then. I hope they
make some sense, however it's unlikely I'll get them ready for 3.3
(unless they already are? ;-) because of my holidays. Maybe at least
they could be linux-next-ed to see what did I break?
Cheers!
Paweł
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
