On Wed 25-03-20 15:36:23, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 3/25/20 3:29 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > Both patches look really great to me. I haven't really checked all the > > details but from a quick glance they both seem ok. > > Thanks. > > > I would just add a small clarification here. Unless I am mistaken > > early_param is called earlier than it would be now. But that shouldn't > > cause any problems because the underlying implementation is just a noop > > for backward compatibility. > > Yeah, indeed worth noting somewhere explicitly. The conversion can't be done > blindly, one has to consider whether the delay compared to early_param can be a > disadvantage or not. For example the nmi_watchdog parameter is probably best > left as it is? I wouldn't mind moving nmi_watchdog timeout initialization to later. If there is a usecase to rely on an early initialization then the patch can be reverted but I struggle to think of anything reasonable. If the early init code needs a lonter timeout to prevent from false positives then there is clearly a bug to be better fixed. And a necessary shorter timeout sounds quite exotic to me TBH. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
