On 11/07/16 15:15, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > On 11/07/16 08:35, Dennis Luehring wrote: >> Am 04.11.2016 um 20:40 schrieb Laszlo Ersek: >>> I guess it is "possible to design a system which can recover from >>> this", except noone seems to have bothered, since 2009. (Ditto for the >>> proposed "panic-level=X" alternative.) >>> >>> I've now briefly considered posting a trivial kernel patch for this, >>> but having learned about the above commit, I don't think so... >> >> i tried to get some response on the linux-kernel or initramfs >> mailinglist 1-2 weeks ago but no one seems to care >> >> but i still think it would help alot to if some more known developers >> would get involved and send in a patch for this - if only for starting a >> discussion about the >> >> situation >> > > Please report the issue directly to the author of commit 73310a169aeb, > that is, "H. Peter Anvin" <h...@zytor.com> (the latter is his current > email address). Please identify the commit to him and feel free to > reference this discussion on qemu-devel, using the mailing list archive.
Also, please CC <linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org> on your bug report. Thanks Laszlo > > If Peter still believes the current logic is valid, no work (= patch) > will have been in vain. If Peter agrees the current logic is wrong after > all, then he should be able to write a patch for you that he won't > dislike (so several iterations won't be necessary for the patch). > > Thanks > Laszlo >
