On Tue, 06 May 2014 20:45:50 +0900 Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu...@hitachi.com> wrote:
> However, I also think if users can accept such freezing wait-time, > it means they can also accept kexec based "checkpoint-restart" patching. > So, I think the final goal of the kpatch will be live patching without > stopping the machine. I'm discussing the issue on github #138, but that is > off-topic. :) > I agree with Ingo too. Being conservative at first is the right approach here. We should start out with a stop_machine making sure that everything is sane before we continue. Sure, that's not much different than a kexec, but lets take things one step at a time. ftrace did the stop_machine (and still does for some archs), and slowly moved to a more efficient method. kpatch/kgraft should follow suit. -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
