> On May 7, 2020, at 7:36 PM, Rafael Aquini <aquini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 07:07:20PM -0400, Qian Cai wrote: >> >> >>> On May 7, 2020, at 6:15 PM, Rafael Aquini <aquini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> It's a reasonable and self-contained feature that we have a valid use for. >>> I honestly fail to see it causing that amount of annoyance as you are >>> suggesting here. >> >> It is not a big trouble yet, but keeping an obsolete patch that not very straightforward to figure out that it will be superseded by the panic_on_taint patch will only cause more confusion the longer it has stayed in linux-next. >> >> The thing is that even if you can’t get this panic_on_taint (the superior solution) patch accepted for some reasons, someone else could still work on it until it get merged. >> >> Thus, I failed to see any possibility we will go back to the inferior solution (mm-slub-add-panic_on_error-to-the-debug-facilities.patch) by all means. >> > > There are plenty of examples of things being added, changed, and > removed in -next. IOW, living in a transient state. I think it's > a reasonable compromise to keep it while the other one is beind > ironed out. > > The fact that you prefer one solution to another doesn't > invalidate the one you dislike. As far I can tell, the bar of the other core subsystems are quite high even for linux-next. People have been voiced over and over again to urge Andrew not picking up patches so eagerly, but I will save that discussion for the next time. Anyway, thanks for working for the panic_on_taint patch. I believe it could be useful for all testing agents to catch those bad pages earlier.
