--xXmbgvnjoT4axfJE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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:
>=20
> > Do we want backwards compatibility defines for the old option
> > names, or warnings when they are still mentioned in a kernel config?
>=20
> I think #warn/#error is the right thing to do.
>=20
> > Could you please document the new options in options(4)? The old
> > ones weren't documented :(
>=20
> Will do.  I think that maybe pci(4) is the "correct" place to do this, th=
ough.

I think the options should be defined in both. Our hope is that all=20
options will be in options(4), while you're right that pci(4) is a very=20
natural place for this information.

As a solution, how about mentioning them with about a paragraph-long=20
description in options(4), and having a full (whatever that is)=20
description in pci(4). Oh, and of course, options(4) would cite pci(4).

Take care,

Bill

--xXmbgvnjoT4axfJE
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFCueanWz+3JHUci9cRAgL/AJwNUCxjkYpAikekPAGUXAC25fa7fwCfZYLY
0Chwr2UgeFlfA32awoW5wvc=
=+aSm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--xXmbgvnjoT4axfJE--