On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 10:26 +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > A > patch making arm64 consistent could be discussed separately, otherwise kdump > becomes the pedantic ISO guy trying to lead by example, but really everybody > ignores him because it's completely inconsequential and they also know he > went 35 versions without giving a monkey's.
I still don't see the logic there for *wanting* kdump to be wrong. Sure, kdump getting it right doesn't necessarily make a big difference in itself. But given that the error has been pointed out, what is the motivation for *wanting* the error to remain in the kdump code, instead of just fixing it? "Consistency" isn't an answer because we are *already* inconsistent — some code gets it right, and other code doesn't. We should converge towards *correctness* rather than deliberately adding more incorrect code. I've used my 'i' key more times just in typing this email than it would have taken to just fix the problem the first time it was pointed out. > David, since you seem to be the most outraged, fancy sending a patch? ;) Coming up. In two parts — user-visible messages, followed by cosmetic and less relevant stuff. -- dwmw2
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
