linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v10 0/4] pstore/block: new support logger for block devices

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <34916ace-7020-06e8-7958-f3652aef6604@allwinnertech.com>
Date:   Wed, 27 Feb 2019 08:50:18 +0800
From:   liaoweixiong <liaoweixiong@...winnertech.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
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 2019-02-26 19:20, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> 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 :)
> 

I'm confident in this patchset :) . It is first time for me to submit
RFC patches, i just don't know i should change the label to PATCH. Thank
you for reminding me.

> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h
> 

-- 
liaoweixiong