----- Original Message ----- > On 05/02, Dave Anderson wrote: > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > On 05/02, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > > > > > On 05/02, Dave Anderson wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > So how should I define LOCAL_ACTIVE() ? As for this patchset I can > > > > > > equally do > > > > > > > > > > > > #define LOCAL_ACTIVE() ((pc->flags & (LIVE_SYSTEM|LIVEDUMP)) == > > > > > > LIVE_SYSTEM) > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not like this because I still think that LOCAL_ACTIVE doesn't > > > > > > need to > > > > > > know about LIVEDUMP added by this series, but I won't argue. > > > > > > > > > > I have no problem with LOCAL_ACTIVE() being defined like that. > > > > > > > > OK, so I will keep it for now... > > > > > > Ah, when I re-read I suspect I misunderstood... So you want me to define > > > LOCAL_ACTIVE() as > > > > > > LIVE_SYSTEM && !LIVE_RAMDUMP > > > > > > right? > > > > Yes. > > OK. Will change this too and send v3 tommorrow. > > BTW, please tell me if you prefer the cumulative patch, I feel that spam this > list too much. No, what you have been doing is fine -- that's what this list is for. Although, if you want to combine some of the related patch files and make the set less than 10 files, that would make be fine too. At this point I know what you're doing... Thanks, Dave > > Oleg. > > -- Crash-utility mailing list Crash-utility@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
