[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.21.1708301451271.6379@san.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 14:52:03 +0200 (CEST)
From: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
cc: jpoimboe@...hat.com, jeyu@...nel.org, jikos@...nel.org,
lpechacek@...e.cz, live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] livepatch: Introduce force sysfs attribute
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Thu 2017-08-10 12:48:12, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> > Currently, livepatch gradually migrate the system from an unpatched to a
> > patched state (or vice versa). Each task drops its TIF_PATCH_PENDING
> > itself when crossing the kernel/user space boundary or it is cleared
> > using the stack checking approach. If there is a task which sleeps on a
> > patched function, the whole transition can get stuck indefinitely.
> >
> > TODO:
> > Now there is a sysfs attribute called "force", which provides two
> > functionalities, "signal" and "force" (previously "unmark"). I haven't
> > managed to come up with better names. Proposals are welcome. On the
> > other hand I do not mind it much.
>
> What about calling the attribute?
>
> transition-speedup
> transition-urge
>
> In each case, I would make it more clear that the attribute
> is related to the transition attribute of each patch.
Umm... I don't like that much and those names would definitely confuse me.
But I'm biased already.
Miroslav
Powered by blists - more mailing lists