[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <527a8fc8-3154-4822-8a78-43bd0696221b@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 13:33:21 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev, x86@...nel.org, rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com,
security@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/1] Accept unaccepted kexec segments' destination
addresses
On 3/4/25 11:16, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 3/4/25 10:49, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> How goes the work to fix this horrifically slow firmware interface?
> The firmware interface isn't actually all that slow.
Hey Eric,
I've noticed a trend on this series. It seems like every time there's
some forward progress on a fix, you pop up, and ask a question. Someone
answers the question. Then, a couple of months later, you seem to pop up
again and ask another form of the same question. It kinda seems to me
like you may not be thoroughly reading the answers from the previous
round of discussion. Or, maybe you're like me and have a hard time
recalling any discussions more than a week ago. ;)
Either way, I hope you're finally convinced that the hardware design
here is reasonable.
If not, I'd really like to continue the conversation now when this is
all fresh in our heads instead of having to poke at cold brain cells in
another month.
Any more questions, or can we finally put this issue to bed?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists