On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 01:05:56PM +0530, Kamalesh Babulal wrote: > On Saturday 14 July 2018 12:07 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > We bail out during patch registration for architectures, those don't > > > support reliable stack trace. > > > > Does anybody know if that change was intentional? I thought the plan > > was to allow non-consistency-model arches to still use livepatch, and > > that they'd just have to 'force' patches to completion instead. That > > seems a little more forgiving. > > > > The initial proposal was to allow 'force' feature on architectures > without HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE support and use pr_notice() to warn > user about the non-availability of consistency model. It was argued > against, as it will encourage people to use it as an alternative instead > of adding HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE support to the kernel. Ok, looking through the archives, I found it: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20171221151428.rt4dlizxb5nqhb3h@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I'm not sure I agree with that conclusion, but nobody has complained about it, so it's probably fine... -- 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
