From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org-S267214AbUG1PVr@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S267214AbUG1PVr (ORCPT <rfc822;willy@w.ods.org>);
	Wed, 28 Jul 2004 11:21:47 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267223AbUG1PVr
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Wed, 28 Jul 2004 11:21:47 -0400
Received: from jade.spiritone.com ([216.99.193.136]:56030 "EHLO
	jade.spiritone.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267214AbUG1PVn
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 28 Jul 2004 11:21:43 -0400
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 08:21:26 -0700
From: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
cc: suparna@in.ibm.com, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, fastboot@osdl.org,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Fastboot] Re: Announce: dumpfs v0.01 - common RAS output API
Message-ID: <120130000.1091028085@[10.10.2.4]>
In-Reply-To: <1091023585.30740.7.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <16734.1090513167@ocs3.ocs.com.au> <20040725235705.57b804cc.akpm@osdl.org> <m1r7qw7v9e.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com> <20040728105455.GA11282@in.ibm.com> <1091011565.30404.0.camel@localhost.localdomain> <35040000.1091025526@[10.10.2.4]> <1091023585.30740.7.camel@localhost.localdomain>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.1 (Linux/x86)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

--Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote (on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 15:06:27 +0100):

> On Mer, 2004-07-28 at 15:38, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
>> After kexec, we shouldn't need such things, do we? Before it, Linus won't 
>> take the patch, as he said he doesn't like systems in unstable states doing
>> crashdumps to disk ...
> 
> And what does kexec do.. it accesses the disk. A SHA signed standalone
> dumper is as safe as anything else if not safer.

But it's reading, not writing ... personally I'm happier with that bit ;-)

M.