On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 11:47:45PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 09:24:23PM +0100, Vojtech Pavlik wrote: > > 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). > > So agree on one method and get it into shape, just like we do for other > kernel subsystems. That's our goal (and it sounds like everybody's on board with that). But we have two different implementations, all the way up the stack. I think we have to work on combining and stabilizing one thing at a time. We want to do this in stages: 1. Define a common core module with an API that can be used by all three approaches (manual, kpatch generator, kGraft generator) 2. Add consistency model(s) (e.g. kpatch stop_machine, kGraft per-task consistency, Masami's per task ref counting) 3. Add combined patch module generation tool -- 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
