On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 01:25:14PM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Thu, 12 Feb 2015, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > Its not at all clear how all this would work to me. And I'm not > > motivated enough to go try and reverse engineer your patch; IMO > > livepatching is utter fail. > > > > If your infrastructure relies on the uptime of a single machine you've > > lost already. > > Well, the fact indisputable fact is that there is a demand for this. It's > not about one machine, it's about scheduling dowtimes of datacentres.
The changelog says: > ... A patch can remain in the > transition state indefinitely, if any of the tasks are stuck in the > previous universe. Therefore there is no scheduling anything. Without timeliness guarantees you can't make a schedule. Might as well just reboot, at least that's fairly well guaranteed to happen. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
