On Tue, Nov 01, 2022 at 11:43:50AM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: > On Wed 2022-10-26 16:41:18, Marcos Paulo de Souza wrote: > > Hello, > > > > This is the v2 of the livepatch shadow GC patches. The changes are minor since > > nobody asked for for big code changes. > > > > Changes from v1: > > * Reworked commit messages (Petr) > > * Added my SoB which was missing in some patches, or the ordering was wrong. (Josh) > > * Change __klp_shadow_get_or_use to __klp_shadow_get_or_add_locked and add a comment (Petr) > > * Add lockdep_assert_held on __klp_shadow_get_or_add_locked (Petr) > > about it's meaning (Petr) > > * CCing LKML (Josh) > > > > Some observations: > > * Petr has reviewed some of the patches that we created. I kept the Reviewed-by > > tags since he wrote the patches some time ago and now he reviewed them again > > on the ML. > > * There were questions about possible problems about using klp_shadow_types > > instead of using ids, but Petr already explained that internally it still uses > > the id to find the correct livepatch. > > * Regarding the possibility of multiple patches use the same ID, the problem > > already existed before. Petr suggested using a "stringified" version using > > name and id, but nobody has commented yet. I can implement such feature in a > > v3 if necessary. > > > > Marcos Paulo de Souza (2): > > livepatch/shadow: Introduce klp_shadow_type structure > > livepatch/shadow: Add garbage collection of shadow variables > > > > Petr Mladek (2): > > livepatch/shadow: Separate code to get or use pre-allocated shadow > > variable > > livepatch/shadow: Separate code removing all shadow variables for a > > given id > > From my POV, the patchset is ready for pushing upstream. Petr, what do you think about merging the first two patches, since they just cleanups and simplifications? > > Well, we need to get approval from kpatch-build users. Joe described > possible problems in replay for v3, see > https://lore.kernel.org/r/b5fc2891-2fb0-4aa7-01dd-861da22bb7ea@xxxxxxxxxx > > Best Regards, > Petr
