On Fri, 2017-02-24 at 11:10 +0100, Philip Hands wrote: > > Samuel Thibault <sthiba...@debian.org> writes: > > > Hello, > > > > Philip Hands, on lun. 13 févr. 2017 11:16:19 +0100, wrote: > > > Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk> writes: > > > > On Sun, 2017-02-12 at 12:26 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > > > > Just wondering: can't we just always do both? I.e. remove the > > > > > varnodot > > > > > check. Sure that's ugly because then we have both the commandline and > > > > > the module, but to me it's the least horrifying solution. And AIUI > > > > > that'd actually be needed if for instance with a new kernel release a > > > > > driver gets migrated from compiled-in to loadable module or > > > > > vice-versa. > > > > > > > > I agree that the current check is incorrect and should be removed. > > > > It's been possible for a long time to have dotted parameters for built- > > > > in code, whether or not that code could ever be built as a module. > > > > > > > > > So, does it look too ugly? > > > > > > > > It is ugly that we will still end up writing module parameters for non- > > > > existent modules. > > > > > > Well, there are only about ten of these prefixes at present AFAICT: > > > > [...] > > > so we could maintain a list of known non-module prefixes to filter the > > > options by. As long as we catch the commonly used ones, that's fine as > > > it doesn't really matter if the list is not complete, since then we fall > > > back to being a bit ugly. > > > > That looks good to me. Anything against this solution? > > I think these changes should do the trick: > > https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/d-i/rootskel.git/log/?h=pu/bug-853855 > > https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/d-i/debian-installer-utils.git/log/?h=pu/bug-853855 [...]
LGTM, though I'm not really familiar with this code. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings All the simple programs have been written, and all the good names taken.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
