> > I don't know, does anybody really care about this case (patching on top > > of a disabled patch)? It just adds to the crazy matrix of possible > > scenarios we have to keep in our heads, which means more bugs, for very > > little (hypothetical) gain. > > It depends if the we remove the replaced patches or not. If they are > removed then replacing disabled patches is rather trivial from both > coding and understanding side.
I agree. Since we already have the code, there is no point not to have the feature. It is not that complicated after all. > I am going to add this as a separate patch as well. Let's discuss > it with the code. > > > > > White the atomic replace could make things easier for both developers > > > and users. > > > > I agree that atomic replace is a useful feature and I'm not arguing > > against it, so maybe I missed your point? > > Your suggestion allows easier code but it reduces the advantages of > the atomic replace feature. We would achieve almost the same results > with a normal livepatch where the functions behave like in > the original code. > > Also removing replaced patches can be seen as a clean up after > each patch. It might be more code but the target system might be > easier to debug. Also we do not need to mind about various > disable scenarios. I agree with this as well. Yes, it was a bit painful to review, but I was quite content with the result. I don't want to go halfway and be stuck with NOPs when it is not complicated to remove them completely after the transition. It'd be odd in my opinion. Regards, Miroslav
