[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171018110541.53mhxtskgbyhr3fl@treble>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 06:05:41 -0500
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
Cc: Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org, jeyu@...nel.org, jikos@...nel.org,
pmladek@...e.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] livepatch: add atomic replace
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 11:10:09AM +0200, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> 3. Drop immediate. It causes problems only and its advantages on x86_64
> are theoretical. You would still need to solve the interaction with atomic
> replace on other architecture with immediate preserved, but that may be
> easier. Or we can be aggressive and drop immediate completely. The force
> transition I proposed earlier could achieve the same.
I like this idea. When can we expect v3 of the force patches? :-)
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists