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;
Date:   Wed, 25 Mar 2020 15:44:55 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc:     Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@google.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, Ivan Teterevkov <ivan.teterevkov@nutanix.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        "Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        "Guilherme G . Piccoli" <gpiccoli@canonical.com>
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-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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