On 06/02/21 at 01:11am, HAGIO KAZUHITO(萩尾 一仁) wrote: > -----Original Message----- > > On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 10:40:09 +0200 David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks, i explained the reason during my last reply. > > > > Andrew has already picked this patch to -mm tree. > > > > > > Just because it's in Andrews tree doesn't mean it will end up upstream. ;) > > > > > > Anyhow, no really strong opinion, it's simply unnecessary code churn > > > that makes bisecting harder without real value IMHO. > > > > I think it's a good change - mem_sections refers to multiple instances > > of a mem_section. Churn is a pain, but that's the price we pay for more > > readable code. And for having screwed it up originally ;) > > From a makedumpfile/crash-utility viewpoint, I don't deny kernel improvement > and probably the change will not be hard for them to support, but I'd like > you to remember that the tool users will need to update them for the change. As VIM user, I can understand Aisheng's feeling on the mem_section variable which has the same symbol name as its type. Meanwhile it does cause makedumpfile/crash having to be changed accordingly. Maybe we can carry it when any essential change is needed in both kernel and makedumpfile/crash around it. > > The situation where we need to update the tools for new kernels is usual, but > there are not many cases that they cannot even start session, and this change By the way, Kazu, about a case starting session, could you be more specific or rephrase? I may not get it clearly. Thanks. > will cause it. Personally I wonder the change is worth forcing users to update > them. > > Thanks, > Kazu > _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
