On Wed, 16 Aug 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 04:50:07PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > > On Fri 2017-08-11 16:11:31, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:48:12PM +0200, Miroslav Benes wrote: > > > > Now there is a sysfs attribute called "force", which provides two > > > > functionalities, "signal" and "force" (previously "unmark"). I haven't > > > > managed to come up with better names. Proposals are welcome. On the > > > > other hand I do not mind it much. > > > > > > Now "force" has two meanings, which is a little confusing. What do you > > > think about just having two separate write-only sysfs flags? > > > > > > echo 1 > /sys/kernel/livepatch/signal > > > echo 1 > /sys/kernel/livepatch/force > > > > I like the simplicity but I wonder if there might be more actions > > that need to be forced in the future. Then this might cause > > confusion. > > > > For example, we have force_module_load attribute in kGraft. > > It allows to load a module even when it is refused by a livepatch. > > It is handy when there is a harmless bug in the patch. We can add force_module_load attribute too in that case. But I see your point, I just don't think it would be that serious as far as confusion is concerned. > What if we put the flags in the per-patch dir? > > /sys/kernel/livepatch/<patch>/signal > /sys/kernel/livepatch/<patch>/force > > That seems pretty unambiguous. The "force" is specific to the patch, it > clearly means we are forcing the patch. Petr, would this solve your worries? Thanks, Miroslav -- 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
