On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 05:51:11PM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote: > One thing that makes me worried here is we basically apply patches in a > 'stackable' manner, but then this allows them to be removed (disabled) in > an arbitrary order. Is this really the semantics we want? > > The scenario I am concerned about, in a nutshell: > > foo_unpatched() > foo_patch1() > foo_patch2() > foo_patch3() > disable(foo_patch2) > disable(foo_patch3) > foo_patch1() > > I.e. basically due to reverting of foo_patch2() while it wasn't in use, we > turn subsequent revert of foo_patch3() into foo_patch1() state, although > the function foo_patch3() was originally patching was foo_patch2(). > > If this is implemented really in a fully stackable manner (i.e. you > basically would be able to disable only the function that is currently > "active", i.e. on top of the stack), woudln't that provide more > predictable semantics? Yes, I agree. Thanks for the comment. Would you want to enforce stacking even if there are no dependencies between the patches? I think that would be easiest (and cleanest). -- 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
