[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.21.1710181328200.8638@san.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 13:29:35 +0200 (CEST)
From: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
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, 18 Oct 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> 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? :-)
Hopefully soon. First I wanted to eliminate the amount of
unreaded/unreviewed patches. Almost there. However there is OSS
next week :/. But soon... :)
Miroslav
Powered by blists - more mailing lists