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. > > > > 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. One reason is that there are currently at least two generators using very different methods of generation (in addition to the option of doing the patch module by hand), and neither of them are currently in a state where they would be ready for inclusion into the kernel (although the kpatch one is clearly closer to that). A generator is not required for using the infrastructure and is merely a means of preparing the live patch with less effort. I'm not opposed at all to adding the generator(s) eventually. However, given that their use is optional, I would prefer not to have to wait on finishing and cleaning up the generator(s) to include of the in-kernel live patching infrastructure. -- Vojtech Pavlik Director SUSE Labs -- 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
