From: Amerigo Wang <hidden> Date: 2010-03-17 05:53:30
It would be nice if we allow spaces in netconsole parameters,
otherwise we get weird results if there are spaces in it.
After this patch, we will allow things like:
"netconsole= @192.168.0.1/eth0 , 66666@192.168.0.2/".
Signed-off-by: WANG Cong <redacted>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
---
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> Date: 2010-03-17 05:54:13
From: Amerigo Wang <redacted>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 01:53:26 -0400
It would be nice if we allow spaces in netconsole parameters,
otherwise we get weird results if there are spaces in it.
After this patch, we will allow things like:
"netconsole= @192.168.0.1/eth0 , 66666@192.168.0.2/".
Signed-off-by: WANG Cong <redacted>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
That kernel command line looks absolutely awful, not
better.
Sorry I'm not applying this.
From: Cong Wang <hidden> Date: 2010-03-17 05:57:30
David Miller wrote:
From: Amerigo Wang <redacted>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 01:53:26 -0400
quoted
It would be nice if we allow spaces in netconsole parameters,
otherwise we get weird results if there are spaces in it.
After this patch, we will allow things like:
"netconsole= @192.168.0.1/eth0 , 66666@192.168.0.2/".
Signed-off-by: WANG Cong <redacted>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
That kernel command line looks absolutely awful, not
better.
Sorry I'm not applying this.
The problem is that the dst port is 0 when I even use:
"netconsole=@192.168.0.1/eth0, 66666@192.168.0.2/"
This is awful too? I don't think so...
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> Date: 2010-03-17 05:59:30
From: Cong Wang <redacted>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:01:06 +0800
The problem is that the dst port is 0 when I even use:
"netconsole=@192.168.0.1/eth0, 66666@192.168.0.2/"
This is awful too? I don't think so...
It's very simple, don't use spaces. Is it so difficult
to follow this rule?
"ipconfig" does it as do a host of other kernel command
line options.
There is no real reason to make netconsle= special in
this regard, really.
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> Date: 2010-03-17 06:14:18
From: Cong Wang <redacted>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:07:57 +0800
No, but silently accepting it as 0 is not correct, why don't
reject it if it is not allowed?
You have to be careful even with that. For example, if two
netconsoles are specified, seeing the space shouldn't
kill the first netconsole specification we parsed.
A warning perhaps, but outright rejection of all specifications is
really bad behavior.
From: Cong Wang <hidden> Date: 2010-03-17 06:34:34
David Miller wrote:
From: Cong Wang <redacted>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:07:57 +0800
quoted
No, but silently accepting it as 0 is not correct, why don't
reject it if it is not allowed?
You have to be careful even with that. For example, if two
netconsoles are specified, seeing the space shouldn't
kill the first netconsole specification we parsed.
A warning perhaps, but outright rejection of all specifications is
really bad behavior.
OK, I will put a warning there instead.
Thanks, David!