On 30/08/2024 14:15, Stephen Brennan wrote: > [...] > > This is definitely clearer and an improvement! But I didn't (and still > don't) love the phrase "users who doubt kdump will succeed" because I > think that implies user error or silly beliefs. > > What if these two sentences read something like: > > In configurations where kdump may not be reliable, running the panic > notifiers can allow collecting more data on dmesg, like stack traces > from other CPUS or extra data dumped by panic_print. > >> Notice that some code >> + enables this option unconditionally, like Hyper-V, >> + PowerPC (fadump) and AMD SEV. > > Yes, great addition. > > With or without my suggestions it's an improvement, so: > > Reviewed-by: Stephen Brennan <stephen.s.brennan@xxxxxxxxxx> > Thanks Stephen, I agree - your wording sounds better. I've incorporated that in the just sent V2. Cheers, Guilherme P.S. I'll be OOO some days, so expect a bit of delay in case there are more reviews/interactions.
