> On May 7, 2020, at 7:36 PM, Rafael Aquini <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 07:07:20PM -0400, Qian Cai wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On May 7, 2020, at 6:15 PM, Rafael Aquini <[email protected]> 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 straightforward to figure out that it will be superseded by the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.
As far I can tell, the bar of the other core subsystems are quite high even for
linux-next. People have been voiced over and over again to urge Andrew not
picking up patches so eagerly, but I will save that discussion for the next
time.
Anyway, thanks for working for the panic_on_taint patch. I believe it could be
useful for all testing agents to catch those bad pages earlier.
