Skip to content

nixos/memtest: Allow user to specify memtest86+ boot parameters#1562

Closed
wizeman wants to merge 1 commit intoNixOS:masterfrom
wizeman:u/memtest
Closed

nixos/memtest: Allow user to specify memtest86+ boot parameters#1562
wizeman wants to merge 1 commit intoNixOS:masterfrom
wizeman:u/memtest

Conversation

@wizeman
Copy link
Member

@wizeman wizeman commented Jan 21, 2014

No description provided.

@edolstra
Copy link
Member

What are these parameters for?

@wizeman
Copy link
Member Author

wizeman commented Jan 21, 2014

@edolstra To specify a serial console, for instance (as in the provided example).
I needed it because I have a server without a monitor or keyboard attached, and the only way I can interact with it during boot is via the serial console.

Here's the full list of the (apparently undocumented) parameters that memtest86+-5.01 accepts:

  • console=xxx: set up a serial console
  • btrace: enable boot trace
  • maxcpus=xxx: limit number of CPUs
  • onepass: Run one pass and exit if there are no errors
  • tstlist=xxx: Setup a list of tests to run
  • cpumask=xxx: Set a CPU mask to select CPUs to use for testing

@wizeman
Copy link
Member Author

wizeman commented Jan 23, 2014

Fixed building ISOs.

@bjornfor
Copy link
Contributor

bjornfor commented Feb 2, 2014

Since the list of options isn't that long and is undocumented, how about adding that list to the "description" field of the params option?

@wizeman
Copy link
Member Author

wizeman commented Feb 8, 2014

Rebased and added the list of accepted parameters to the "description" field, as suggested by @bjornfor.

@bjornfor
Copy link
Contributor

bjornfor commented Feb 9, 2014

@wizeman: Pushed to master. I added a commit to use docbook formatting, because when the manual was generated, the "list" structure disappeared and it became quite unreadable.

@bjornfor bjornfor closed this Feb 9, 2014
@wizeman
Copy link
Member Author

wizeman commented Feb 9, 2014

@bjornfor Thanks!

@peti
Copy link
Member

peti commented Feb 10, 2014

Is it possible that this patch caused #1722?

@wizeman
Copy link
Member Author

wizeman commented Feb 10, 2014

@peti Yes, the syntax changed. Please see my comment in #1722.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants