[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160208202829.GE23106@treble.redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 14:28:29 -0600
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
Cc: Jessica Yu <jeyu@...hat.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Seth Jennings <sjenning@...hat.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 0/6] (mostly) Arch-independent livepatch
On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 03:54:22PM +0100, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016, Jessica Yu wrote:
>
> > Jessica Yu (6):
> > Elf: add livepatch-specific Elf constants
> > module: preserve Elf information for livepatch modules
> > module: s390: keep mod_arch_specific for livepatch modules
> > livepatch: reuse module loader code to write relocations
> > samples: livepatch: mark as livepatch module
> > Documentation: livepatch: outline Elf format and requirements for
> > patch modules
>
> Hi,
>
> I walked through the code and it looks good except for several minor
> things in the fourth patch (livepatch: reuse module loader code to write
> relocations). I'd propose to send the next version as a regular PATCH set
> and not RFC. We can start collecting Reviews and Acks. Hopefully it won't
> take more than one or two iterations. Would that be ok with everyone?
Sounds good to me...
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists