On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 08:48:42PM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Mon, 19 Jan 2015, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > > 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). > > Yup, I think that makes the most sense (especially in this "first step"). > Relaxing the revert rules to cover only patches which are really dependent > on each other (and we'd have to be careful about defining the meaning > this, especially with repsect to various consistency models coming in the > future) is something tha can always be done later on top. Sounds good. I'll do a v2. FYI, I've also been working on a prototype of a consistency model, based on my discussions with Vojtech on the list a few months ago (LEAVE_PATCHED_SET + SWITCH_THREAD). I'll probably have some patches to send out for comments in a few weeks. That should hopefully be a good starting point for more discussion about the consistency model(s). -- 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
