* jerry.hoem...@hp.com <jerry.hoem...@hp.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 08:44:04PM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 8:04 PM, <jerry.hoem...@hp.com> wrote:
> > > Making this issue a quirk will be a lot more practical. Its a small,
> > > focused
> > > change whose implications are limited and more easily understood.
> >
> > There's nothing practical with requiring users to pass a kernel option
> > to make kdump work. It's a workaround, sure, but it's not a proper
> > fix.
>
> One already has to specify command line arguments to enable kdump.
> See "crashkernel=" in Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt.
That option is already a usability barrier. Adding yet another
usability barrier improves things how?
> As i said in an earlier mail we are working w/ distros. [...]
The point being?
> [...] distros can and do specify lots of interesting command line
> arguments for their systems. Distros have tools for configuring
> kdump. User must already use these tools or manually edit multiple
> config files, to get kdump to work. I would work with distros to
> help integrate this change into their tools.
Here you describe a method that has already successfully cut the kdump
user base to a fraction of its potential size. Why should we assist to
that effort of engineered obscurity?
> As i said in earlier mail, i am willing to change implementation to
> some type of black/white listing.
Is it possible to fix it the way hpa suggested?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
