On Fri, 7 Nov 2014, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > Also, lpc_create_object(), lpc_create_func(), lpc_create_patch(), > > lpc_create_objects(), lpc_create_funcs(), ... they all are pretty much > > alike, and are asking for some kind of unification ... perhaps iterator > > for generic structure initialization? > > The allocation and initialization code is very simple and > straightforward. I really don't see a problem there. This really boils down to the question I had in previous mail, whether three-level hierarchy (patch->object->funcs), which is why there is a lot of very alike initialization code, is not a bit over-designed. > > I am not also really fully convinced that we need the > > patch->object->funcs abstraction hierarchy (which also contributes to > > the structure allocation being rather a spaghetti copy/paste code) ... > > wouldn't patch->funcs be suffcient, with the "object" being made just > > a property of the function, for example? > > > > > Plus, I show that kernel/kgraft.c + kernel/kgraft_files.c is > > > 906+193=1099. I'd say they are about the same size :) > > > > Which is still seem to me to be a ratio worth thinking about improving > > :) > > Yes, this code doesn't have a consistency model, but it does have some > other non-kGraft things like dynamic relocations, BTW we need to put those into arch/x86/ as they are unfortunately not generic. But more on this later independently. > deferred module patching, FWIW kgraft supports that as well. > and a unified API. There's really no point in comparing lines of code. Oh, sure, I didn't mean that this is any kind of metrics that should be taken too seriously at all. I was just expressing my surprise that unification of the API would bring so much code that it makes the result comparably sized to "the whole thing" :) Thanks, -- Jiri Kosina 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
