[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZgwNn5+/Ryh05OOm@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2024 09:52:31 -0400
From: Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>
To: zhangwarden@...il.com
Cc: jpoimboe@...nel.org, mbenes@...e.cz, jikos@...nel.org, pmladek@...e.com,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] livepatch: Add KLP_IDLE state
On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 11:09:54AM +0800, zhangwarden@...il.com wrote:
> From: Wardenjohn <zhangwarden@...il.com>
>
> In livepatch, using KLP_UNDEFINED is seems to be confused.
> When kernel is ready, livepatch is ready too, which state is
> idle but not undefined. What's more, if one livepatch process
> is finished, the klp state should be idle rather than undefined.
>
> Therefore, using KLP_IDLE to replace KLP_UNDEFINED is much better
> in reading and understanding.
> ---
> include/linux/livepatch.h | 1 +
> kernel/livepatch/patch.c | 2 +-
> kernel/livepatch/transition.c | 24 ++++++++++++------------
> 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/livepatch.h b/include/linux/livepatch.h
> index 9b9b38e89563..c1c53cd5b227 100644
> --- a/include/linux/livepatch.h
> +++ b/include/linux/livepatch.h
> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
>
> /* task patch states */
> #define KLP_UNDEFINED -1
> +#define KLP_IDLE -1
Hi Wardenjohn,
Quick question, does this patch intend to:
- Completely replace KLP_UNDEFINED with KLP_IDLE
- Introduce KLP_IDLE as an added, fourth potential state
- Introduce KLP_IDLE as synonym of sorts for KLP_UNDEFINED under certain
conditions
I ask because this patch leaves KLP_UNDEFINED defined and used in other
parts of the tree (ie, init/init_task.c), yet KLP_IDLE is added and
continues to use the same -1 enumeration.
--
Joe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists