Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 6 Dec 2018 08:54:04 +0100
From:   Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
To:     Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@redhat.com>
Cc:     Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>,
        Evgenii Shatokhin <eshatokhin@virtuozzo.com>,
        live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 00/11] livepatch: Atomic replace feature
Message-ID: <20181206075404.rv4qyw2u5auvfiuz@pathway.suse.cz>
References: <20181129094431.7801-1-pmladek@suse.com>
 <176e592d-6e9c-8e1c-abe6-d07ba9b10d54@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <176e592d-6e9c-8e1c-abe6-d07ba9b10d54@redhat.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170421 (1.8.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed 2018-12-05 15:49:14, Joe Lawrence wrote:
> On 11/29/2018 04:44 AM, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > The atomic replace allows to create cumulative patches. They
> > are useful when you maintain many livepatches and want to remove
> > one that is lower on the stack. In addition it is very useful when
> > more patches touch the same function and there are dependencies
> > between them.
> > 
> > Changes against v13:
> > 
> >   + Add custom kobj_alive flag to reliably handle kobj state. [Miroslav]
> > 
> 
> Aside: I don't suppose that this could ever be folded into the kobject
> code/data structure itself?  This seems like a common problem that
> kobj-users will need to solve like this.

I am afraid that it does not have much chance to get solved in
kobject. They are not designed to be used in static objets and
there is pushback against this usecase.


> I don't have many code comments as the changes appear to safely and
> correctly do what the say.  (We are at v14 after all :)  I mainly
> compared the text and comments to the implementation and noted typos
> (marked by substitution s/old/new) and awkward wordings (marked by
> "re-wording suggestion").  That said, I ack'd each patch as I wouldn't
> want these to hold up the patchset.

Thanks a lot both you and Miroslav for the review.

I'll give it some more days before I prepare v15. I wonder if Josh
could find some cycle to look at it at least from the top level.

Best Regards,
Petr