On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 10:58:57AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 07:51:57PM +0100, Vojtech Pavlik wrote: > > I don't think this specific example was generated. So there are two ways to use this live patching API: using a generated module (e.g., using the kpatch-build tool) or manually compiling a module via kbuild. Vojtech's right, the provided example was not generated. Maybe it belongs in samples/livepatch? > > > > I also don't think including the whole kpatch automation into the kernel > > tree is a viable development model for it. (Same would apply for kGraft > > automation.) > > Why? We (IMHO incorrectly) used the argument of tight coupling to put > perf into the kernel tree. Generating kernel live patches is way more > integrated that it absolutely has to go into the tree to be able to do > proper development on it in an integrated fashion. I agree that we should also put kpatch-build (or some converged kpatch/kGraft-build tool) into the kernel tree, because of the tight interdependencies between it and the kernel. I think it would make development much easier. Otherwise, for example, it may end up having a lot of #ifdef hacks based on what kernel version it's targeting. -- Josh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe live-patching" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
