On Tue, 27 Feb 2018, Joe Lawrence wrote: > On 02/27/2018 07:36 AM, Miroslav Benes wrote: > > On Fri, 23 Feb 2018, Joe Lawrence wrote: > > > >> [ ... snip ... ] > >> > >> +If a livepatch is replaced by a cumulative patch, then only the > >> +callbacks belonging to the cumulative patch will be executed. This > >> +simplifies the livepatching core for it is the responsibility of the > >> +cumulative patch to safely revert whatever needs to be reverted. See > >> +Documentation/livepatch/cumulative.txt for more information on such > >> +patches. > > > > s/cumulative/atomic replace/ almost everywhere? > > > > 'Documentation/livepatch/cumulative.txt' should be > > 'Documentation/livepatch/cumulative-patches.txt' and we may rename it > > atomic-replace-patches.txt. I don't know. Cumulative patches forms a > > subset of atomic replace patches in my understanding. The feature itself > > is more general. Even if practically used for cumulative patches only. But > > it is for you and Petr to decide. > > Hi Miroslav, > > Thanks for reviewing! > > I guess I'm a little confused about the distinction here. > > I understood a "cumulative-patch" to mean that it would contain the sum > of all changes. So instead of this: > > patch 1 = A > + patch 2 = B > + patch 3 = C > ----------------------- > net = A + B + C > > We can group all of the changes together into a single cumulative-patch > for the same net effect: > > patch 1 = A -replaced by- > patch 2 = A + B -replaced by- > patch 3 = A + B + C Yes. > I assumed this would also mean to include any reverted changes as well. > So in the example above, if change C needed to be reverted, then: > > patch 4 = A + B > > and that would still be considered a "cumulative-patch". Ah, ok. This is where we differ. I didn't consider this to be a cumulative patch. But I understand your reasoning. 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