From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qt0-f200.google.com (mail-qt0-f200.google.com [209.85.216.200]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 347386B005D for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2018 19:00:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-qt0-f200.google.com with SMTP id l8-v6so16358828qtb.11 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2018 16:00:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com. [66.187.233.73]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o5si1934144qva.142.2018.04.25.16.00.33 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 25 Apr 2018 16:00:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 19:00:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Mikulas Patocka Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH v5] fault-injection: introduce kvmalloc fallback options In-Reply-To: <1524694663.4100.21.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Message-ID: References: <20180421144757.GC14610@bombadil.infradead.org> <20180423151545.GU17484@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180424125121.GA17484@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180424162906.GM17484@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180424170349.GQ17484@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180424173836.GR17484@dhcp22.suse.cz> <1114eda5-9b1f-4db8-2090-556b4a37c532@infradead.org> <1524694663.4100.21.camel@HansenPartnership.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="185206533-1907632136-1524697231=:31135" Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: James Bottomley Cc: David Rientjes , dm-devel@redhat.com, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, mst@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, jasowang@redhat.com, Randy Dunlap , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Matthew Wilcox , Michal Hocko , linux-mm@kvack.org, edumazet@google.com, Andrew Morton , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, David Miller , Vlastimil Babka This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --185206533-1907632136-1524697231=:31135 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, James Bottomley wrote: > > > Do we really need the new config option?A A This could just be > > > manuallyA tunable via fault injection IIUC. > > > > We do, because we want to enable it in RHEL and Fedora debugging > > kernels,A so that it will be tested by the users. > > > > The users won't use some extra magic kernel options or debugfs files. > > If it can be enabled via a tunable, then the distro can turn it on > without the user having to do anything. If you want to present the > user with a different boot option, you can (just have the tunable set > on the command line), but being tunable driven means that you don't > have to choose that option, you could automatically enable it under a > range of circumstances. I think most sane distributions would want > that flexibility. > > Kconfig proliferation, conversely, is a bit of a nightmare from both > the user and the tester's point of view, so we're trying to avoid it > unless absolutely necessary. > > James BTW. even developers who compile their own kernel should have this enabled by a CONFIG option - because if the developer sees the option when browsing through menuconfig, he may enable it. If he doesn't see the option, he won't even know that such an option exists. Mikulas --185206533-1907632136-1524697231=:31135--