[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yd8ggcNEWgqAwmcD@dev0025.ash9.facebook.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2022 10:40:01 -0800
From: David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...hat.com>, mcgrof@...nel.org, cl@...ux.com,
mbenes@...e.cz, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jeyu@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-modules@...r.kernel.org,
atomlin@...mlin.com, ghalat@...hat.com, allen.lkml@...il.com,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 03/13] module: Move livepatch support to a
separate file
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com> wrote on Wed [2022-Jan-12 17:53:56 +0100]:
> It would be better to have the two variants close each other. I mean
> to have it somewhere like:
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_LIVEPATCH
>
> variant A
>
> #else
>
> variant B
>
> #endif
>
<snip>
> #ifdef CONFIG_LIVEPATCH
> static inline bool set_livepatch_module(struct module *mod)
> {
> mod->klp = true;
> return true;
> }
> #else /* !CONFIG_LIVEPATCH */
> static inline bool set_livepatch_module(struct module *mod)
> {
> return false;
> }
> #endif /* CONFIG_LIVEPATCH */
>
>
> Well, it might be matter of taste. Others might prefer another solution.
> Adding live-patching mailing list into Cc.
+1 -- this seems like a cleaner approach.
- David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists