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, Apr 18, 2008 at 4:32 PM, Andrew Morton
    <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
    > On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:07:46 -0700
    > "Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Andrew Morton
    > > <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
    > > > 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.
    > >
    > > need one text file in Documentation ?
    >
    > Well if there was a single CONFIG_MEMTEST then it would probably be
    > sufficent to document it all within the Kconfig help for that option.
    >
    > But there isn't a CONFIG_MEMTEST. It appears that the presence or absence
    > of the memtest feature is controlled by CONFIG_MEMTEST_BOOTPARAM which
    > makes no sense at all!
    >
    >
    > > > 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.
    > >
    > > also
    > > for big box, like 64g above, that will take a while.
    >
    > So... such users shouldn't add the memtest= boot parameter?
    >
    >
    > I'd suggest the following:
    >
    > - Add a CONFIG_MEMTEST. No other config variable needed.
    >
    > - Put all the memtest code inside #ifdef CONFIG_MEMTEST.
    >
    > - As part of that memtest code, implement the memtest= boot option
    >
    > - Make the memtest feature default to "off" if memtest= was not provided.
    >
    >
    > That's all very simple and conventional?

    ok, I will produce one patch. it will be

    memtest=0 ==> disable
    memtest=4 ==> will run 4 test pattern

    YH


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-04-19 02:07    [W:0.025 / U:0.084 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site