On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 08:28:20PM +0900, Christopher SEKIYA wrote: > On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 01:07:07PM +0200, Thomas Klausner wrote: > > > Do we want backwards compatibility defines for the old option > > names, or warnings when they are still mentioned in a kernel config? > > I think #warn/#error is the right thing to do. > > > Could you please document the new options in options(4)? The old > > ones weren't documented :( > > Will do. I think that maybe pci(4) is the "correct" place to do this, though. I think the options should be defined in both. Our hope is that all options will be in options(4), while you're right that pci(4) is a very natural place for this information. As a solution, how about mentioning them with about a paragraph-long description in options(4), and having a full (whatever that is) description in pci(4). Oh, and of course, options(4) would cite pci(4). Take care, Bill
Attachment:
pgpVqabgU5AI_.pgp
Description: PGP signature