From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932235AbcHSP7D (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Aug 2016 11:59:03 -0400 Received: from tex.lwn.net ([70.33.254.29]:37277 "EHLO vena.lwn.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750889AbcHSP7B (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Aug 2016 11:59:01 -0400 Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 09:57:40 -0600 From: Jonathan Corbet To: "Zhou, =?UTF-8?B?V2Vuamlhbi/lkajmlofliZE=?=" Cc: , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 1/2] Documentation: kdump: remind user of nr_cpus Message-ID: <20160819095740.1cccc073@lwn.net> In-Reply-To: <57B653D1.8060106@cn.fujitsu.com> References: <1471489907-27737-1-git-send-email-zhouwj-fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <1471489907-27737-2-git-send-email-zhouwj-fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <20160818111854.362bb972@lwn.net> <57B653D1.8060106@cn.fujitsu.com> Organization: LWN.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 08:33:21 +0800 "Zhou, Wenjian/周文剑" wrote: > I was also confused by maxcpus and nr_cpus before writing this patch. > I think it is a good choice to describe it in kernel-parameters.txt. > > Then, only two things need to be done I think. > One is move the above description to maxcpus= in kernel-parameters.txt. > And the other is replace maxcpus with maxcpus/nr_cpus in kdump.txt. > > How do you think? That is not quite what I had in mind, sorry. What I would really like to see in kernel-parameters.txt is an explanation of how those two parameters differ - what do they do differently and how should a user choose one over the other? What we have now offers no guidance in that matter. I suspect that may be a bit more than you had signed up to do. As an intermediate step, how about this: rather than tacking on those lines in kdump.txt, rewrite that paragraph to simply say what the reader should use. If nr_cpus is good for everybody, just say that, but your previous patch suggests that the situation isn't quite that simple? Thanks, jon