linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: unify "numa=" command line option handling

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, 7 Jan 2011 16:12:54 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>
Cc:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: unify "numa=" command line option handling


* Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com> wrote:

> >>> On 07.01.11 at 15:22, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> > Your -stable comment above made it appear to me as if you knew about a 
> > specific 
> > system that crashed this way? As long as it's only theoretical i'm not sure 
> > it 
> > warrants a -stable backport.
> 
> Yes, I do have a system affected (which made me craft the patch
> in the first place).

In that case it's very useful to start the commit with:

  System XYZ crashes during bootup due to a bug in numa= command line option 
  handling.

That will also cause me to add an immediate -stable backport tag from me, even if 
you dont add it. Keeping it all optional and theoretical with 'it may crash' wording 
just hides the essential piece of information that there's a real system affected by 
the bug.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/