linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 1/2] Documentation: kdump: remind user of nr

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 19 Aug 2016 09:57:40 -0600
From:   Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To:     "Zhou, Wenjian/周文剑" 
        <zhouwj-fnst@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:     <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        <dyoung@...hat.com>, <bhe@...hat.com>, <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
        <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        <xlpang@...hat.com>, <joe@...ches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 1/2] Documentation: kdump: remind user of nr_cpus

On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 08:33:21 +0800
"Zhou, Wenjian/周文剑" <zhouwj-fnst@...fujitsu.com> wrote:

> I was also confused by maxcpus and nr_cpus before writing this patch.
> I think it is a good choice to describe it in kernel-parameters.txt.
> 
> Then, only two things need to be done I think.
> One is move the above description to maxcpus= in kernel-parameters.txt.
> And the other is replace maxcpus with maxcpus/nr_cpus in kdump.txt.
> 
> How do you think?

That is not quite what I had in mind, sorry.  What I would really like to
see in kernel-parameters.txt is an explanation of how those two parameters
differ - what do they do differently and how should a user choose one over
the other?  What we have now offers no guidance in that matter.

I suspect that may be a bit more than you had signed up to do.  As an
intermediate step, how about this: rather than tacking on those lines in
kdump.txt, rewrite that paragraph to simply say what the reader should
use.  If nr_cpus is good for everybody, just say that, but your previous
patch suggests that the situation isn't quite that simple?

Thanks,

jon