[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190103124740.s3mpgmjw4no4qr6f@pathway.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2019 13:47:40 +0100
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>, Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>,
Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>,
Evgenii Shatokhin <eshatokhin@...tuozzo.com>,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 07/11] livepatch: Add atomic replace
On Mon 2018-12-17 16:27:41, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Thu 2018-12-13 16:55:28, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 10:44:27AM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > Side note, it would probably be useful to have a klp_for_each_patch()
> > helper.
>
> Will do.
Hmm, there are two possibilities:
1) #define klp_for_each_patch(patch) \
list_for_each_entry(patch, &klp_patches, list)
2) #define klp_for_each_patch(patches, patch) \
list_for_each_entry(patch, &patches, list)
Problems:
1st variant would need to declare klp_patches in
include/linux/livepatch.h. Josh did not like even
kernel/livepatch/core.h.
2nd variant looks ugly to me.
Alternative solution would be to move all klp_for_each*()
definitions from include/linux/livepatch.h to kernel/livepatch/core.h.
But there might be some users. I wonder if we use these
macros when preparing the cumulative patches.
As any solution looks controversial, I would prefer to postpone this change
after this patchset is accepted.
Best Regards,
Petr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists