[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20251118150908.GKaRyMFPX0oidW-YMv@fat_crate.local>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2025 16:09:08 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Jürgen Groß <jgross@...e.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] x86/alternative: Use a helper function for
patching alternatives
On Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 03:45:05PM +0100, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> It doesn't do the patching. That is done in the caller of
> analyze_patch_site().
It doesn't do patch site analysis only either.
> and putting the code to be patched in into the temporary buffer and then it
> is printing the debug info related to the result of the analysis.
This belongs more into the patch_site function, I'd say.
> I can add one other layer doing the split you are asking for: one for gathering
> the information and one for applying relocs and debug printing. But I'd really
> like to keep the final patching in apply_alternatives(), as this makes it very
> clear where the final patching of the code is done.
Fine by me. And I'd like to have clearly separated stages with functions named
accordingly and functions doing *only* one thing and one thing only.
I'm even more fine if you do:
analyze_patch_site();
prep_patch_site();
patch_site();
and have it perfectly clear and separated and borderline trivial.
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists