[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <eee335a2-e673-39bf-ae64-e49c66f74255@canonical.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2020 09:45:40 -0300
From: "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@...onical.com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, mcgrof@...nel.org,
keescook@...omium.org, yzaikin@...gle.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
cocci@...teme.lip6.fr, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
kernel@...ccoli.net, randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] kernel/hung_task.c: Introduce sysctl to print all
traces when a hung task is detected
On 24/03/2020 05:27, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> [...]
> Before adding a new thing as both kernel parameter and sysctl, could we perhaps
> not add the kernel parameter, in favor of the generic sysctl parameter solution?
> [1] There were no objections and some support from Kees, so I will try to send a
> new version ASAP that will work properly with all "static" sysctls - we don't
> need to be blocked by a full solution for dynamically registered sysctls yet, I
> guess?
>
> Thanks,
> Vlastimil
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-api/20200317132105.24555-1-vbabka@suse.cz/
>
Thanks Randy and Vlastimil for the comments. I really liked your
approach Vlastimil, I agree that we have no reason to not have a generic
sysctl setting via cmdline mechanism - I'll rework this patch removing
the kernel parameter (same for other patch I just submitted).
If you can CC me on the new iterations of the generic sysctl patches
Vlastimil, I appreciate - I can maybe test that, I'd like to see it in
kernel.
Thanks,
Guilherme
Powered by blists - more mailing lists