On 2015/1/21 22:36, Seth Jennings wrote: > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 03:06:38PM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote: >> On Wed, 21 Jan 2015, Li Bin wrote: >> >>> This reverts commit 83a90bb1345767f0cb96d242fd8b9db44b2b0e17. >>> >>> The method that only allowing the topmost patch on the stack to be >>> enabled or disabled is unreasonable. Such as the following case: >>> >>> - do live patch1 >>> - disable patch1 >>> - do live patch2 //error >>> >>> Now, we will never be able to do new live patch unless disabing the >>> patch1 although there is no dependencies. >> >> Unregistering disabled patch still works and removes it from the list no >> matter the position. >> >> So what exactly is the problem? > >>From a quick glance, it seems that what this set does is it only > enforces the stacking requirements if two patches patch the same > function. > Yes, this patch is only concerning this case that 'multi patches patch the same function' and solve the problem that mentioned previously: foo_unpatched() foo_patch1() foo_patch2() foo_patch3() disable(foo_patch2) disable(foo_patch3) foo_patch1() foo_patch2 is not allowed to be disabled before disable foo_patch3. Thanks, Li Bin > I'm not sure if that is correct logically or correctly implemented by > these patches yet. > > Seth > >> >> -- >> 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
