On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 09:42:09AM -0300, Joao Moreira wrote: > > Sounds good! For klp-convert to be successful, we really need a > > strategy for dealing with such optimizations. I'm thinking that a > > '-fpreserve-function-abi' flag would be the cleanest way to handle it. > > > > If we don't have a strategy for dealing with optimizations, then we may > > instead need to go with a binary diff-based tool like kpatch-build. > > I'm currently looking into binary diff-based solutions to deal with this > problem. My plan is to submit a second patch set once I have it functional > and land both things (klp-convert and bin-diff) in two different steps. Instead of having multiple approaches, I'd strongly prefer that we converge on a single in-tree approach that works for everybody. (Whether that will be source-based like klp-convert or binary-based like kpatch-build, I don't know.) BTW, what is bin-diff? Have you seen kpatch-build? > Is there any issue with following this schedule? Meaning, do you guys still > plan on reviewing this patch set or do you prefer me to do something > differently in terms of approach? IMO, klp-convert will only be useful if we have a realistic strategy for dealing with GCC optimizations. So I'd say we should follow through on that with the compiler folks before spending too much more time on it. -- 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
