[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.21.2407251618220.21729@pobox.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 16:19:30 +0200 (CEST)
From: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>,
Nicolai Stange <nstange@...e.de>, live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [POC 0/7] livepatch: Make livepatch states, callbacks, and shadow
variables work together
On Fri, 10 Nov 2023, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 06:04:21PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > This POC is a material for the discussion "Simplify Livepatch Callbacks,
> > Shadow Variables, and States handling" at LPC 2013, see
> > https://lpc.events/event/17/contributions/1541/
> >
> > It obsoletes the patchset adding the garbage collection of shadow
> > variables. This new solution is based on ideas from Nicolai Stange.
> > And it should also be in sync with Josh's ideas mentioned into
> > the thread about the garbage collection, see
> > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230204235910.4j4ame5ntqogqi7m@treble
>
> Nice! I like how it brings the "features" together and makes them easy
> to use. This looks like a vast improvement.
>
> Was there a reason to change the naming? I'm thinking
>
> setup / enable / disable / release
>
> is less precise than
>
> pre_patch / post_patch / pre_unpatch / post_unpatch.
>
> Also, I'm thinking "replaced" instead of "obsolete" would be more
> consistent with the existing terminology.
>
> For example, in __klp_enable_patch():
>
> ret = klp_setup_states(patch);
> if (ret)
> goto err;
>
> if (patch->replace)
> klp_disable_obsolete_states(patch);
>
> it's not immediately clear why "disable obsolete" would be the "replace"
> counterpart to "setup".
>
> Similarly, in klp_complete_transition():
>
> if (klp_transition_patch->replace && klp_target_state == KLP_PATCHED) {
> klp_unpatch_replaced_patches(klp_transition_patch);
> klp_discard_nops(klp_transition_patch);
> klp_release_obsolete_states(klp_transition_patch);
> }
>
> it's a little jarring to have "unpatch replaced" followed by "release
> obsolete".
I agree. I would also stick to the existing naming. It is clearer to me.
Miroslav
Powered by blists - more mailing lists