From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965326AbbLHQLJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Dec 2015 11:11:09 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-f53.google.com ([74.125.82.53]:33926 "EHLO mail-wm0-f53.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932402AbbLHQLI (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Dec 2015 11:11:08 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1448636635-15946-1-git-send-email-izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com> <20151207163112.930a495d24ab259cad9020ac@linux-foundation.org> Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 08:11:06 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] mm: Introduce kernelcore=reliable option From: Tony Luck To: "Izumi, Taku" Cc: Andrew Morton , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "qiuxishi@huawei.com" , "Kamezawa, Hiroyuki" , "mel@csn.ul.ie" , "dave.hansen@intel.com" , "matt@codeblueprint.co.uk" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 12:07 AM, Izumi, Taku wrote: > Which do you think is beter ? > - change into kernelcore="mirrored" > - keep kernelcore="reliable" and minmal printk fix UEFI came up with the "reliable" wording (as a more generic term ... as Andrew said it could cover differences in ECC modes, or some alternate memory technology that has lower error rates). But I personally like "mirror" more ... it matches current implementation. Of course I'll look silly if some future system does something other than mirror. -Tony