[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170411123516.GD3452@pathway.suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 14:35:16 +0200
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc: Jessica Yu <jeyu@...hat.com>, Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.com>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
Chris J Arges <chris.j.arges@...onical.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 13/15] livepatch: change to a per-task consistency
model
On Mon 2017-02-13 19:42:40, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> Change livepatch to use a basic per-task consistency model. This is the
> foundation which will eventually enable us to patch those ~10% of
> security patches which change function or data semantics. This is the
> biggest remaining piece needed to make livepatch more generally useful.
>
>
> Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Just for record, this last version looks fine to me. I do not see
problems any longer. Everything looks consistent now ;-)
It is a great work. Feel free to use:
Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Thanks a lot for patience.
Best Regards,
Petr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists