Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 7 May 2020 19:36:34 -0400
From:   Rafael Aquini <aquini@redhat.com>
To:     Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        dyoung@redhat.com, Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel: add panic_on_taint
Message-ID: <20200507233634.GA367616@optiplex-lnx>
References: <20200507221503.GL205881@optiplex-lnx>
 <6B423101-ACF4-49A3-AD53-ACBF87F1ABE0@lca.pw>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <6B423101-ACF4-49A3-AD53-ACBF87F1ABE0@lca.pw>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 07:07:20PM -0400, Qian Cai wrote:
> 
> 
> > On May 7, 2020, at 6:15 PM, Rafael Aquini <aquini@redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > It's a reasonable and self-contained feature that we have a valid use for. 
> > I honestly fail to see it causing that amount of annoyance as you are 
> > suggesting here.
> 
> It is not a big trouble yet, but keeping an obsolete patch that not very straightforward to figure out that it will be superseded by the panic_on_taint patch will only cause more confusion the longer it has stayed in linux-next.
> 
> The thing is that even if you can’t get this panic_on_taint (the superior solution) patch accepted for some reasons, someone else could still work on it until it get merged.
> 
> Thus, I failed to see any possibility we will go back to the inferior solution (mm-slub-add-panic_on_error-to-the-debug-facilities.patch) by all means.
>

There are plenty of examples of things being added, changed, and
removed in -next. IOW, living in a transient state. I think it's 
a reasonable compromise to keep it while the other one is beind 
ironed out.

The fact that you prefer one solution to another doesn't
invalidate the one you dislike. 

Cheers,
-- Rafael