From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756319AbeDZM6a (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Apr 2018 08:58:30 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:35251 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756163AbeDZM6W (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Apr 2018 08:58:22 -0400 Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 14:58:17 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Mikulas Patocka Cc: James Bottomley , David Rientjes , dm-devel@redhat.com, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, mst@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, jasowang@redhat.com, Randy Dunlap , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Matthew Wilcox , linux-mm@kvack.org, edumazet@google.com, Andrew Morton , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, David Miller , Vlastimil Babka Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH v5] fault-injection: introduce kvmalloc fallback options Message-ID: <20180426125817.GO17484@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20180424170349.GQ17484@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180424173836.GR17484@dhcp22.suse.cz> <1114eda5-9b1f-4db8-2090-556b4a37c532@infradead.org> <1524694663.4100.21.camel@HansenPartnership.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed 25-04-18 18:42:57, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > > > On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, James Bottomley wrote: [...] > > Kconfig proliferation, conversely, is a bit of a nightmare from both > > the user and the tester's point of view, so we're trying to avoid it > > unless absolutely necessary. > > > > James > > I already offered that we don't need to introduce a new kernel option and > we can bind this feature to any other kernel option, that is enabled in > the debug kernel, for example CONFIG_DEBUG_SG. Michal said no and he said > that he wants a new kernel option instead. Just for the record. I didn't say I _want_ a config option. Do not misinterpret my words. I've said that a config option would be acceptable if there is no way to deliver the functionality via kernel package automatically. You haven't provided any argument that would explain why the kernel package cannot add a boot option. Maybe there are some but I do not see them right now. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs