On 11/07/16 08:35, Dennis Luehring wrote: > Am 04.11.2016 um 20:40 schrieb Laszlo Ersek: >> I guess it is "possible to design a system which can recover from >> this", except noone seems to have bothered, since 2009. (Ditto for the >> proposed "panic-level=X" alternative.) >> >> I've now briefly considered posting a trivial kernel patch for this, >> but having learned about the above commit, I don't think so... > > i tried to get some response on the linux-kernel or initramfs > mailinglist 1-2 weeks ago but no one seems to care > > but i still think it would help alot to if some more known developers > would get involved and send in a patch for this - if only for starting a > discussion about the > > situation >
Please report the issue directly to the author of commit 73310a169aeb, that is, "H. Peter Anvin" <h...@zytor.com> (the latter is his current email address). Please identify the commit to him and feel free to reference this discussion on qemu-devel, using the mailing list archive. If Peter still believes the current logic is valid, no work (= patch) will have been in vain. If Peter agrees the current logic is wrong after all, then he should be able to write a patch for you that he won't dislike (so several iterations won't be necessary for the patch). Thanks Laszlo
