On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 09:24:23PM +0100, Vojtech Pavlik wrote: > 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). What generator does kGraft have? Is that the one that generates the source patch, or is there one that generates a binary patch module? -- 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
