Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [RFC v10 0/4] pstore/block: new support logger for block devices
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Anton Vorontsov <anton@enomsg.org>,
        Colin Cross <ccross@android.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@microchip.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <1551162825-28943-1-git-send-email-liaoweixiong@allwinnertech.com>
 <20190226112033.GA16900@kroah.com>
From:   liaoweixiong <liaoweixiong@allwinnertech.com>
Message-ID: <34916ace-7020-06e8-7958-f3652aef6604@allwinnertech.com>
Date:   Wed, 27 Feb 2019 08:50:18 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190226112033.GA16900@kroah.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 2019-02-26 19:20, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 02:33:41PM +0800, liaoweixiong wrote:
>> Why should we need pstore_block?
>> 1. Most embedded intelligent equipment have no persistent ram, which
>> increases costs. We perfer to cheaper solutions, like block devices.
>> In fast, there is already a sample for block device logger in driver
>> MTD (drivers/mtd/mtdoops.c).
>> 2. Do not any equipment have battery, which means that it lost all data
>> on general ram if power failure. Pstore has little to do for these
>> equipments.
>>
>> [PATCH v10]
> 
> Why are you still labeling these as "RFC"?  No one should actually be
> applying a Request For Comments patchset, as you obviously are not
> thinking it is ready to be merged :(
> 
> After 10 revisions, I hope you are confident in this patchset :)
> 

I'm confident in this patchset :) . It is first time for me to submit
RFC patches, i just don't know i should change the label to PATCH. Thank
you for reminding me.

> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h
> 

-- 
liaoweixiong