* jerry.hoemann@xxxxxx <jerry.hoemann@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 08:44:04PM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 8:04 PM, <jerry.hoemann@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > Making this issue a quirk will be a lot more practical. Its a small, focused > > > change whose implications are limited and more easily understood. > > > > There's nothing practical with requiring users to pass a kernel option > > to make kdump work. It's a workaround, sure, but it's not a proper > > fix. > > One already has to specify command line arguments to enable kdump. > See "crashkernel=" in Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt. That option is already a usability barrier. Adding yet another usability barrier improves things how? > As i said in an earlier mail we are working w/ distros. [...] The point being? > [...] distros can and do specify lots of interesting command line > arguments for their systems. Distros have tools for configuring > kdump. User must already use these tools or manually edit multiple > config files, to get kdump to work. I would work with distros to > help integrate this change into their tools. Here you describe a method that has already successfully cut the kdump user base to a fraction of its potential size. Why should we assist to that effort of engineered obscurity? > As i said in earlier mail, i am willing to change implementation to > some type of black/white listing. Is it possible to fix it the way hpa suggested? Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
