[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y5CIvcZLuokwyGYT@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2022 20:36:13 +0800
From: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Eric DeVolder <eric.devolder@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
kexec@...ts.infradead.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
dyoung@...hat.com, vgoyal@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...hat.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...or.com,
nramas@...ux.microsoft.com, thomas.lendacky@....com,
robh@...nel.org, efault@....de, rppt@...nel.org, david@...hat.com,
sourabhjain@...ux.ibm.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 3/7] crash: add generic infrastructure for crash
hotplug support
On 12/07/22 at 11:00am, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 11:26:53AM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> > This kernel config CRASH_HOTPLUG is added in patch 7, but we have used
> > it in the previous patch, not sure if this is acceptable.
>
> Why would it not be acceptable?
Below is my last reply to Eric about my thinking on this. That would be
great if it's a normal situation when adding Kconfig item, I am happy to
learn this if it's confirmed normal.
=====
Hmm, since it's bisect-able, seems doesn't break rule. I could be too
sensitive. Do we have a precendent like this, to strengthen our
confidence?
If no concern from other people, it's also fine to me.
=====
Thanks
Baoquan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists