[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160129155035.GG4081@treble.redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 09:50:35 -0600
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Jessica Yu <jeyu@...hat.com>, Seth Jennings <sjenning@...hat.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.com>,
Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ftrace: Adjust priority of ftrace module notifier
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 10:49:50AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 09:45:05 -0600
> Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>
> > If we do that then I still think it would be a good idea to split up the
> > livepatch notifiers, with:
> >
> > - INT_MAX-1 for coming so that relocations are all written before any
> > other notifiers (besides ftrace) get a chance to run.
> >
> > - INT_MIN-1 for going. I don't have a good specific reason, but I think
>
> Do you mean INT_MIN+1 ?
Er, yeah.
>
> -- Steve
>
> > the symmetry will create less surprises and possibly fewer bugs if the
> > module's patched state as seen by the other notifiers is the same for
> > coming and going.
> >
>
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists