[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.21.1802271600520.19255@pobox.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 14:20:22 +0100 (CET)
From: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
To: Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>
cc: live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>, Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>,
Evgenii Shatokhin <eshatokhin@...tuozzo.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v0 2/3] livepatch: update documentation/samples for
callbacks
On Tue, 27 Feb 2018, Joe Lawrence wrote:
> On 02/27/2018 07:36 AM, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Feb 2018, Joe Lawrence wrote:
> >
> >> [ ... snip ... ]
> >>
> >> +If a livepatch is replaced by a cumulative patch, then only the
> >> +callbacks belonging to the cumulative patch will be executed. This
> >> +simplifies the livepatching core for it is the responsibility of the
> >> +cumulative patch to safely revert whatever needs to be reverted. See
> >> +Documentation/livepatch/cumulative.txt for more information on such
> >> +patches.
> >
> > s/cumulative/atomic replace/ almost everywhere?
> >
> > 'Documentation/livepatch/cumulative.txt' should be
> > 'Documentation/livepatch/cumulative-patches.txt' and we may rename it
> > atomic-replace-patches.txt. I don't know. Cumulative patches forms a
> > subset of atomic replace patches in my understanding. The feature itself
> > is more general. Even if practically used for cumulative patches only. But
> > it is for you and Petr to decide.
>
> Hi Miroslav,
>
> Thanks for reviewing!
>
> I guess I'm a little confused about the distinction here.
>
> I understood a "cumulative-patch" to mean that it would contain the sum
> of all changes. So instead of this:
>
> patch 1 = A
> + patch 2 = B
> + patch 3 = C
> -----------------------
> net = A + B + C
>
> We can group all of the changes together into a single cumulative-patch
> for the same net effect:
>
> patch 1 = A -replaced by-
> patch 2 = A + B -replaced by-
> patch 3 = A + B + C
Yes.
> I assumed this would also mean to include any reverted changes as well.
> So in the example above, if change C needed to be reverted, then:
>
> patch 4 = A + B
>
> and that would still be considered a "cumulative-patch".
Ah, ok. This is where we differ. I didn't consider this to be a cumulative
patch. But I understand your reasoning.
Miroslav
Powered by blists - more mailing lists