On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 5:39 AM, Torsten Duwe <duwe@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 09:53:16PM +0530, Naveen N . Rao wrote: >> On 2017/10/31 03:30PM, Torsten Duwe wrote: >> > >> > Maybe I failed to express my views properly; I find the whole approach > [...] >> > NAK'd-by: Torsten Duwe <duwe@xxxxxxx> >> >> Hmm... that wasn't evident at all given Balbir's reponse to your >> previous concerns and your lack of response for the same: >> https://www.mail-archive.com/linuxppc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg125350.html > > To me it was obvious that the root cause was kpatch's current inability to > deal with ppc calling conventions when copying binary functions. Hence my > hint at the discussion about a possible source-level solution that would > work nicely for all architectures. Alternatives are good, at this point kpatch is important and should be supported. Source level alternatives are not controlled by us, but by distros and tooling. I don't think the NAK helps, it only states that kpatch should not be enabled for ppc64 as it needs a new stub. I know SuSE does not use kpatch, but we would want to be able to support tools across distros. When we get a source level patch tool going, I'd love to have it and have use it by default and we can revisit the usefulness of this stub at that point and deprecate if required. Balbir Singh. -- 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
