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:   Fri, 21 Jun 2019 11:00:08 -0400
From:   Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@redhat.com>
To:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Cc:     Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>,
        Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Nicolai Stange <nstange@suse.de>,
        live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 3/5] livepatch: Allow to distinguish different version of
 system state changes
Message-ID: <20190621142156.GF20356@redhat.com>
References: <20190611135627.15556-1-pmladek@suse.com>
 <20190611135627.15556-4-pmladek@suse.com>
 <20190621140911.GC20356@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190621140911.GC20356@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.4 (2019-03-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:09:11AM -0400, Joe Lawrence wrote:
> More word play: would it be any clearer to drop the use of
> "modification" when talking about klp_states?  Sometimes I read
> modification to mean a change to a klp_state itself rather than the
> system at large.

After reading through the rest of the series, maybe I was premature
about this.  "System state modification" is used consistently throughout
the series, so without having any better suggestion, ignore my comment.

-- Joe