Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 7 Dec 2022 20:36:13 +0800
From:   Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc:     Eric DeVolder <eric.devolder@oracle.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
        kexec@lists.infradead.org, ebiederm@xmission.com,
        dyoung@redhat.com, vgoyal@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
        mingo@redhat.com, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, hpa@zytor.com,
        nramas@linux.microsoft.com, thomas.lendacky@amd.com,
        robh@kernel.org, efault@gmx.de, rppt@kernel.org, david@redhat.com,
        sourabhjain@linux.ibm.com, konrad.wilk@oracle.com,
        boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 3/7] crash: add generic infrastructure for crash
 hotplug support
Message-ID: <Y5CIvcZLuokwyGYT@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
References: <20221116214643.6384-1-eric.devolder@oracle.com>
 <20221116214643.6384-4-eric.devolder@oracle.com>
 <Y4A1/cSekXUTFriC@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
 <Y5BkL8x01KWoF502@zn.tnic>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y5BkL8x01KWoF502@zn.tnic>
Precedence: bulk

On 12/07/22 at 11:00am, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 11:26:53AM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> > This kernel config CRASH_HOTPLUG is added in patch 7, but we have used
> > it in the previous patch, not sure if this is acceptable.
> 
> Why would it not be acceptable?

Below is my last reply to Eric about my thinking on this. That would be
great if it's a normal situation when adding Kconfig item, I am happy to
learn this if it's confirmed normal.

=====
Hmm, since it's bisect-able, seems doesn't break rule. I could be too
sensitive. Do we have a precendent like this, to strengthen our
confidence?

If no concern from other people, it's also fine to me.
=====

Thanks
Baoquan