On Fri 01-12-23 12:33:53, Philipp Rudo wrote: [...] > And yes, those are all what-if concerns but unfortunately that is all > we have right now. Should theoretical concerns without an actual evidence (e.g. multiple drivers known to be broken) become a roadblock for this otherwise useful feature? > Only alternative would be to run extended tests in > the field. Which means this user facing change needs to be included. > Which also means that we are stuck with it as once a user facing change > is in it's extremely hard to get rid of it again... I am not really sure I follow you here. Are you suggesting once crashkernel=cma is added it would become a user api and therefore impossible to get rid of? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
