On 2015/1/22 16:39, Li Bin wrote: > On 2015/1/22 11:51, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 08:42:29AM +0800, Li Bin wrote: >>> On 2015/1/21 22:08, Jiri Kosina wrote: >>>> On Wed, 21 Jan 2015, Li Bin wrote: >>>> By this you limit the definition of the patch inter-dependency to just >>>> symbols. But that's not the only way how patches can depend on it other -- >>>> the dependency can be semantical. >>> >>> Yes, I agree with you. But I think the other dependencies such as semantical >>> dependency should be judged by the user, like reverting a patch from git repository. >>> Right? >> >> But with live patching, there are two users: the patch creator (who >> creates the patch module) and the end user (who loads it on their >> system). >> >> We can assume the patch creator knows what he's doing, but the end user >> doesn't always know or care about low level details like patch >> dependencies. The easiest and safest way to protect the end user is the >> current approach, which assumes that each patch depends on all >> previously applied patches. > > But then, the feature that disable patch dynamically is useless. > For example, if user find a bug be introduced by the last patch and disable > it directly, the new patch is no longer allowed from now unless enable the > old patch firstly but there is a risk window by this way. > Ok, in this case we can unregister the old patch firstly. But it seems that the feature that enable/disable patch dynamically indeed useless. (Its value is only for the last patch to enable or disable.) >> > > > -- > 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 > > . > -- 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
