Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 10:40:31 -0600
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>, Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@suse.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Seth Jennings <sjenning@redhat.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, live-patching@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: live kernel upgrades (was: live kernel patching design)
Message-ID: <20150222164031.GB4399@treble.redhat.com>
References: <20150220214613.GA21598@suse.com>
 <20150221181852.GA8406@gmail.com>
 <alpine.LNX.2.00.1502211952120.2357@pobox.suse.cz>
 <20150221191607.GA9534@gmail.com>
 <alpine.LNX.2.00.1502212025450.2357@pobox.suse.cz>
 <20150221194840.GA10126@gmail.com>
 <alpine.LNX.2.00.1502212058080.2357@pobox.suse.cz>
 <20150222084601.GA23491@gmail.com>
 <20150222094639.GA23684@gmail.com>
 <20150222143758.GA4399@treble.redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150222143758.GA4399@treble.redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1-rc1 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1379
Lines: 31

On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 08:37:58AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 10:46:39AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >  - the whole 'consistency model' talk both projects employ 
> >    reminds me of how we grew 'security modules': where 
> >    people running various mediocre projects would in the 
> >    end not seek to create a superior upstream project, but 
> >    would seek the 'consensus' in the form of cross-acking 
> >    each others' patches as long as their own code got 
> >    upstream as well ...
> 
> That's just not the case.  The consistency models were used to describe
> the features and the pros and cons of the different approaches.
> 
> The RFC is not a compromise to get "cross-acks".  IMO it's an
> improvement on both kpatch and kGraft.  See the RFC cover letter [1] and
> the original consistency model discussion [2] for more details.

BTW, I proposed that with my RFC we only need a _single_ consistency
model.

Yes, there have been some suggestions that we should support multiple
consistency models, but I haven't heard any good reasons that would
justify the added complexity.

-- 
Josh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/