On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 14:42:07 -0700 Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> Does -mm have a next+1 section? If so, you could queue it up now :)
> >
> > Yes, I can do that. I add little notes-to-self in the series file to
> > remember such things.
>
> Should I send you a patch, or do you want to write it yo
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Andrew Morton
wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 14:34:14 -0700 Andy Lutomirski
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Andrew Morton
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 14:01:55 -0700 Josh Triplett
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> > IOW, the no-fallback behavior is eas
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 14:34:14 -0700 Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Andrew Morton
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 14:01:55 -0700 Josh Triplett
> > wrote:
> >
> >> > IOW, the no-fallback behavior is easy to implement, easy to
> >> > understand, and has extremely predic
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Andrew Morton
wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 14:01:55 -0700 Josh Triplett
> wrote:
>
>> > IOW, the no-fallback behavior is easy to implement, easy to
>> > understand, and has extremely predictable behavior. The fallback
>> > behavior is more user friendly if you c
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 14:01:55 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote:
> > IOW, the no-fallback behavior is easy to implement, easy to
> > understand, and has extremely predictable behavior. The fallback
> > behavior is more user friendly if you consider having a chance of
> > booting to something useful if yo
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 01:14:54PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Andrew Morton
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 1 Oct 2014 11:13:14 -0700 Andy Lutomirski
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 11:05 AM, wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 09:53:56PM -0700, Andy Lut
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Andrew Morton
wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2014 11:13:14 -0700 Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 11:05 AM, wrote:
>> > On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 09:53:56PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >> I significantly prefer default N. Scripts that play with ini
On 10/14/14 16:00, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2014 11:13:14 -0700 Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 11:05 AM, wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 09:53:56PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
I significantly prefer default N. Scripts that play with init= really
d
On 10/14/2014 10:56 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:46 PM, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 10/14/2014 2:21 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Andrew Morton
>>> wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2014 11:13:14 -0700 Andy Lutomirski
wrote:
> On
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:46 PM, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 10/14/2014 2:21 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Andrew Morton
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 1 Oct 2014 11:13:14 -0700 Andy Lutomirski
>>> wrote:
>>>
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 11:05 AM, wrote:
> On Tue, Sep
On 10/14/2014 2:21 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Andrew Morton
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Oct 2014 11:13:14 -0700 Andy Lutomirski
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 11:05 AM, wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 09:53:56PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> I si
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Andrew Morton
wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2014 11:13:14 -0700 Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 11:05 AM, wrote:
>> > On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 09:53:56PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >> I significantly prefer default N. Scripts that play with ini
On Wed, 1 Oct 2014 11:13:14 -0700 Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 11:05 AM, wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 09:53:56PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> I significantly prefer default N. Scripts that play with init= really
> >> don't want the fallback, and I can imagine con
Andy Lutomirski writes:
> If a user puts init=/whatever on the command line and /whatever
> can't be run, then the kernel will try a few default options before
> giving up. If init=/whatever came from a bootloader prompt, then
> this is unexpected but probably harmless. On the other hand, if it
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 11:13:14AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 11:05 AM, wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 09:53:56PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> I significantly prefer default N. Scripts that play with init= really
> >> don't want the fallback, and I can imagi
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 11:05 AM, wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 09:53:56PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> I significantly prefer default N. Scripts that play with init= really
>> don't want the fallback, and I can imagine contexts in which it could
>> be a security problem.
>
> While I certa
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 09:53:56PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> I significantly prefer default N. Scripts that play with init= really
> don't want the fallback, and I can imagine contexts in which it could
> be a security problem.
While I certainly would prefer the non-fallback behavior for in
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 8:16 PM, Rob Landley wrote:
> On 09/30/14 20:52, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 9/30/2014 5:58 PM, Rob Landley wrote:
>>> If you're going to argue that it should "default y", that's a defensible
>>> choice. But please don't argue for kernel config symbols with a negative
>>> mea
On 09/30/14 20:52, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 9/30/2014 5:58 PM, Rob Landley wrote:
>> If you're going to argue that it should "default y", that's a defensible
>> choice. But please don't argue for kernel config symbols with a negative
>> meaning or we'll start having allyesconfig_n brain damage too.
On 9/30/2014 5:58 PM, Rob Landley wrote:
> On 09/30/14 19:41, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> The earliest mention I find of this on lkml is v4. Was there earlier
>> discussion of this elsewhere? (Just so I have a clue as to the full
>> context and don't repeat previous discussion.) The mention of names
On 09/30/14 19:41, Frank Rowand wrote:
> The earliest mention I find of this on lkml is v4. Was there earlier
> discussion of this elsewhere? (Just so I have a clue as to the full
> context and don't repeat previous discussion.) The mention of names
> in the change logs tells me I should be able
The earliest mention I find of this on lkml is v4. Was there earlier
discussion of this elsewhere? (Just so I have a clue as to the full
context and don't repeat previous discussion.) The mention of names
in the change logs tells me I should be able to find the discussion
somewhere.
On 9/28/20
On Sun, 28 Sep 2014 19:40:31 -0700
Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> If a user puts init=/whatever on the command line and /whatever
> can't be run, then the kernel will try a few default options before
> giving up. If init=/whatever came from a bootloader prompt, then
> this is unexpected but probably h
If a user puts init=/whatever on the command line and /whatever
can't be run, then the kernel will try a few default options before
giving up. If init=/whatever came from a bootloader prompt, then
this is unexpected but probably harmless. On the other hand, if it
comes from a script (e.g. a tool
24 matches
Mail list logo
