linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kexec: force x86_64 arches to boot kdump kernels on boot cpu

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:	Wed, 12 Dec 2007 14:32:02 -0700
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>,
	Ben Woodard <woodard@...hat.com>,
	Neil Horman <nhorman@...hat.com>, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hbabu@...ibm.com,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, tglx@...utronix.de,
	mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kexec: force x86_64 arches to boot kdump kernels on boot cpu

Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com> writes:

> I think this just leaves us with deciding on a mechanism for how to do
> single-application quirks.  I take Andi's point that adding a flag set to the
> quirk data structure is a fine solution, but I'm really ok with static integers
> in individual functions.  Do we have consensus on how to handle that?  I'm happy
> either way, but I'd rather have agreement on how to handle it before I post
> another iteration of this patch.  

As long as the solution is simple, small and concise I don't care.

And since what will make Andi happy seems to meet those criteria,
that should be fine.


Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/