[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jLE8dr4+G6fFmwcbm8YAs=RB+OiupyPCX6COhVu6av__w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 12:54:35 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: liaoweixiong <liaoweixiong@...winnertech.com>
Cc: Anton Vorontsov <anton@...msg.org>,
Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v7 0/5] pstore/block: new support logger for block devices
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 4:06 AM liaoweixiong
<liaoweixiong@...winnertech.com> wrote:
>
> Why should we need pstore_block?
> 1. Most embedded intelligent equipment have no persistent ram, which
> increases costs. We perfer to cheaper solutions, like block devices.
> In fast, there is already a sample for block device logger in driver
> MTD (drivers/mtd/mtdoops.c).
> 2. Do not any equipment have battery, which means that it lost all data
> on general ram if power failure. Pstore has little to do for these
> equipments.
>
> [PATCH v7]
> On patch 1:
> 1. Fix line over 80 characters.
> On patch 2:
> 1. Insert a separate patch for DT bindings.
This is looking good. Can you address the DT bindings review concerns,
and send a v8?
Thanks!
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists