[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ffe4b1ac-926e-7f99-900b-707384f09462@igalia.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 15:23:45 -0300
From: "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@...lia.com>
To: Stephen Brennan <stephen.s.brennan@...cle.com>,
kexec@...ts.infradead.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Cc: bhe@...hat.com, vgoyal@...hat.com, dyoung@...hat.com, corbet@....net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-debuggers@...r.kernel.org,
kernel@...ccoli.net, kernel-dev@...lia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Improve crash_kexec_post_notifiers
description
On 30/08/2024 14:15, Stephen Brennan wrote:
> [...]
>
> This is definitely clearer and an improvement! But I didn't (and still
> don't) love the phrase "users who doubt kdump will succeed" because I
> think that implies user error or silly beliefs.
>
> What if these two sentences read something like:
>
> In configurations where kdump may not be reliable, running the panic
> notifiers can allow collecting more data on dmesg, like stack traces
> from other CPUS or extra data dumped by panic_print.
>
>> Notice that some code
>> + enables this option unconditionally, like Hyper-V,
>> + PowerPC (fadump) and AMD SEV.
>
> Yes, great addition.
>
> With or without my suggestions it's an improvement, so:
>
> Reviewed-by: Stephen Brennan <stephen.s.brennan@...cle.com>
>
Thanks Stephen, I agree - your wording sounds better.
I've incorporated that in the just sent V2.
Cheers,
Guilherme
P.S. I'll be OOO some days, so expect a bit of delay in case there are
more reviews/interactions.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists