From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE122C54FD0 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 14:45:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5BD220789 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 14:45:01 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1585147501; bh=nrlbBldDwEOLDkgyySWJ/ls1xZvrwKIzLnTpm0NTpMI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=apkCqRMIeDTUG+mvTyy6F/fXTcOx2RyRq9lQa6xdHnXIZW+M/vFiAppUroUSlnai0 TuGDrBnJhDujo6m3dYmw7YaVmwbkSbQRpDZHcjWVsIvMSvRt/Itijl6QKCQGo2Q6lT tyw4BwQDDLWOF9uG1bMOzaXmdja6yhyQRKjLINvY= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727661AbgCYOpB (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Mar 2020 10:45:01 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-f67.google.com ([209.85.221.67]:43882 "EHLO mail-wr1-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727585AbgCYOpB (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Mar 2020 10:45:01 -0400 Received: by mail-wr1-f67.google.com with SMTP id b2so3399476wrj.10; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 07:44:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=1wXJURRfaYTpe+TCjojzcV1WjXnlcA0INFVzjy7A9b0=; b=tSkb9VCEreIr/nKIM7duUF7EOQMl21u7RP0uKEr8YMkVhTaYvqPSaRT0DTYsoCDyT1 4KS5/lLvquxwl6zAM/S+ed9rD+VDS3zzi7WF3yht/jrEc3EizSbeDQ6Hu8N6R1WWADSa NIzLUuy0Y4J2iVYFi3DUbAnTSjBEjIKACnVwOE9OeFmkbIysaegR45+ZmoqtWzYMTqyG d17DlkJY/CPsC4snROqtE+cNZvGkKMSC/iKjVbpaPHbt/TFOy7c7v6pyAJk7/zkuwdUs z7f+bpVfo6JZclm2F+ZcG2lUirSZw/vl0r5Ttcd0x7w/LOFoU0Pk2EnnxU0YoKjoM9R6 RXiw== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ2C1BFhMeDYMsUSn+gpkfu+T799sAXHCnBNMEzo2o6S0SPLuV3g 847O6bcrM2u9JkhgoZPPow8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vtP5TbgvM97466nU7Ig6JQ0PKYu5gHQ/U5ZR4td856KE9KuAti5Bf+113PwA58BsS0hnY0XFQ== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:468c:: with SMTP id u12mr4074403wrq.394.1585147497291; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 07:44:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (ip-37-188-135-150.eurotel.cz. [37.188.135.150]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b82sm9241480wmb.46.2020.03.25.07.44.55 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 25 Mar 2020 07:44:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 15:44:55 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Vlastimil Babka Cc: Luis Chamberlain , Kees Cook , Iurii Zaikin , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Ivan Teterevkov , David Rientjes , Matthew Wilcox , "Eric W . Biederman" , "Guilherme G . Piccoli" Subject: Re: [RFC v2 2/2] kernel/sysctl: support handling command line aliases Message-ID: <20200325144455.GE19542@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20200325120345.12946-1-vbabka@suse.cz> <20200325120345.12946-2-vbabka@suse.cz> <20200325142936.GC19542@dhcp22.suse.cz> <52faea3b-6442-3b1b-9404-6a018d1d1c44@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52faea3b-6442-3b1b-9404-6a018d1d1c44@suse.cz> Sender: linux-api-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-api@vger.kernel.org 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