On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 02:39:40PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > On Thu 2016-04-28 15:44:48, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > Change livepatch to use a basic per-task consistency model. This is the > > foundation which will eventually enable us to patch those ~10% of > > security patches which change function or data semantics. This is the > > biggest remaining piece needed to make livepatch more generally useful. > > I spent a lot of time with checking the memory barriers. It seems that > they are basically correct. Let me use my own words to show how > I understand it. I hope that it will help others with review. [...snip a ton of useful comments...] Thanks, this will help a lot! I'll try to incorporate your barrier comments into the code. I also agree that kpatch_patch_task() is poorly named. I was trying to make it clear to external callers that "hey, the task is getting patched now!", but it's internally inconsistent with livepatch code because we make a distinction between patching and unpatching. Maybe I'll do: klp_update_task_patch_state() -- Josh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
