Andrew Morton wrote:
> Could we have an update for Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt, please?
>
Sorry, of course.
New patch included. "rootwait" is also just a boolean, so make sure it
is treated as such.
Rgds
--
-- Pierre Ossman
Linux kernel, MMC maintainerhttp://www.kern
On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 07:24:36 +0200 Pierre Ossman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +static int __init rootwait_setup(char *line)
> +{
> + root_wait = simple_strtol(line,NULL,0);
> + return 1;
> +}
> +
> +__setup("rootwait=", rootwait_setup);
Could we have an update for Documentation/kernel-par
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:20:48 +0200 Pierre Ossman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> What was the verdict here? Were you satisfied with this or do you need a
>> change?
>>
>
>
> I was kinda hoing to see version #2 with that funny loop cleaned up a bit?
>
>
New patch
On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:20:48 +0200 Pierre Ossman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
(top-posting reversed)
> Pierre Ossman wrote:
> > Andrew Morton wrote:
> >> Whatever. I think you can work it out ;)
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Bare with me, I just woke up ;)
> >
> >> while (driver_probe_done() || (ROO
What was the verdict here? Were you satisfied with this or do you need a change?
Pierre Ossman wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
>> Whatever. I think you can work it out ;)
>>
>>
>
> Bare with me, I just woke up ;)
>
>> while (driver_probe_done() || (ROOT_DEV = name_to_dev_t(...)) == 0)
>>
>>
Andrew Morton wrote:
> Whatever. I think you can work it out ;)
>
>
Bare with me, I just woke up ;)
> while (driver_probe_done() || (ROOT_DEV = name_to_dev_t(...)) == 0)
>
> perhaps?
>
> The loop-which-sleeps within a loop-which-sleeps seems poorly thought out?
>
I'd say a matter of ta
On Fri, 25 May 2007 06:03:54 +0200 Pierre Ossman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 May 2007 14:21:35 +0200
> > Pierre Ossman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> + /* wait for any asynchronous scanning to complete */
> >> + if ((ROOT_DEV == 0) && root_wait) {
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2007 14:21:35 +0200
> Pierre Ossman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> +/* wait for any asynchronous scanning to complete */
>> +if ((ROOT_DEV == 0) && root_wait) {
>> +printk(KERN_INFO "Waiting for root device %s...\n",
>> +
On Thu, 24 May 2007 14:21:35 +0200
Pierre Ossman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> + /* wait for any asynchronous scanning to complete */
> + if ((ROOT_DEV == 0) && root_wait) {
> + printk(KERN_INFO "Waiting for root device %s...\n",
> + saved_root_name);
> +
Olaf Hering wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, Pierre Ossman wrote:
>
>
>> init: wait for asynchronously scanned block devices
>>
>
> init/do_mounts.c:242:__setup("rootdelay=", root_delay_setup);
>
> Why does that not work for you and how does your patch fix it?
>
The problem isn't really mine, I
On Thu, May 24, Pierre Ossman wrote:
> init: wait for asynchronously scanned block devices
init/do_mounts.c:242:__setup("rootdelay=", root_delay_setup);
Why does that not work for you and how does your patch fix it?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the
11 matches
Mail list logo
