Re: [PATCH 0/4] kdump: crashkernel reservation from CMA

[Michal Hocko]

On Fri 01-12-23 12:33:53, Philipp Rudo wrote:
[...]
> And yes, those are all what-if concerns but unfortunately that is all
> we have right now.

Should theoretical concerns without an actual evidence (e.g. multiple
drivers known to be broken) become a roadblock for this otherwise useful
feature? 

> Only alternative would be to run extended tests in
> the field. Which means this user facing change needs to be included.
> Which also means that we are stuck with it as once a user facing change
> is in it's extremely hard to get rid of it again...

I am not really sure I follow you here. Are you suggesting once
crashkernel=cma is added it would become a user api and therefore
impossible to get rid of?

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs