On Sat 2007-04-28 07:21:59, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > Hi. > > On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 14:57 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > On Fri 2007-04-27 15:52:12, Pekka J Enberg wrote: > > > On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > 1. This should not be a config option > > > > > > Ok. > > > > Unfortunately, we loose dmesg from the state saving this way, so I do > > not think it can be hardcoded, either. Best way would be to somehow > > preserve both dmesg buffers. > > > > Other way is to just control it by the define in the .c file; person > > using this is by definition kernel hacker, anyway. Or this can simply > > live like debugging patch, interested parties can apply. > > That's why I made it a config option - so you can choose whether you > want it or not. Yes, and having it as a config option is completely wrong. There's no good value for that config option, how is poor user going to answer it. That config option is evil. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
