[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190226112033.GA16900@kroah.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 12:20:33 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: liaoweixiong <liaoweixiong@...winnertech.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Anton Vorontsov <anton@...msg.org>,
Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v10 0/4] pstore/block: new support logger for block devices
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 02:33:41PM +0800, liaoweixiong 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 v10]
Why are you still labeling these as "RFC"? No one should actually be
applying a Request For Comments patchset, as you obviously are not
thinking it is ready to be merged :(
After 10 revisions, I hope you are confident in this patchset :)
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists