On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 07:07:20PM -0400, Qian Cai wrote: > > > > On May 7, 2020, at 6:15 PM, Rafael Aquini <aqu...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > It's a reasonable and self-contained feature that we have a valid use for. > > I honestly fail to see it causing that amount of annoyance as you are > > suggesting here. > > It is not a big trouble yet, but keeping an obsolete patch that not very > straightforward to figure out that it will be superseded by the > panic_on_taint patch will only cause more confusion the longer it has stayed > in linux-next. > > The thing is that even if you can’t get this panic_on_taint (the superior > solution) patch accepted for some reasons, someone else could still work on > it until it get merged. > > Thus, I failed to see any possibility we will go back to the inferior > solution (mm-slub-add-panic_on_error-to-the-debug-facilities.patch) by all > means. >
There are plenty of examples of things being added, changed, and removed in -next. IOW, living in a transient state. I think it's a reasonable compromise to keep it while the other one is beind ironed out. The fact that you prefer one solution to another doesn't invalidate the one you dislike. Cheers, -- Rafael
