[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202005151253.AF4AC00@keescook>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 12:53:50 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, Anton Vorontsov <anton@...msg.org>,
Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@...labora.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/6] pstore/ram: Introduce max_reason and convert
dump_oops
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 03:40:14PM -0400, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> pdata.dump_oops = dump_oops;
> > + /* If "max_reason" is set, its value has priority over "dump_oops". */
> > + if (ramoops_max_reason != -1)
> > + pdata.max_reason = ramoops_max_reason;
>
> (ramoops_max_reason >= 0) might make more sense here, we do not want
> negative max_reason even if it was provided by the user.
Yeah, that's a good point. I'll tweak that. Thanks!
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists