[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210128162446.GA3883@lst.de>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 17:24:46 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Frederic Barrat <fbarrat@...ux.ibm.com>,
Andrew Donnellan <ajd@...ux.ibm.com>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>,
Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>, Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>,
Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>,
Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/13] livepatch: refactor klp_init_object
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 05:22:40PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > We need to either update the function description or keep this check.
> >
> > I prefer to keep the check. The function does the right thing also
> > for the object "vmlinux". Also the livepatch code includes many
> > similar paranoid checks that makes the code less error prone
> > against any further changes.
>
> Well, the check is in the caller now where we have a conditional for
> it. So I'd be tempted to either update the comment, or just drop the
> patch.
Also even without the check I think it will do the right thing when
called for vmlinux given that it simplify won't find a module called
vmlinux..
Powered by blists - more mailing lists