[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1502221959470.19920@pobox.suse.cz>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 20:03:04 +0100 (CET)
From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Seth Jennings <sjenning@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, live-patching@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: live kernel upgrades (was: live kernel patching design)
On Sun, 22 Feb 2015, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> Yes, there have been some suggestions that we should support multiple
> consistency models, but I haven't heard any good reasons that would
> justify the added complexity.
I tend to agree, consistency models were just a temporary idea that seems
to likely become unnecessary given all the ideas on the unified solution
that have been presented so far.
(Well, with a small exception to this -- I still think we should be able
to "fire and forget" for patches where it's guaranteed that no
housekeeping is necessary -- my favorite example is again fixing out of
bounds access in a certain syscall entry ... i.e. the "super-simple"
consistency model).
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists