Re: [PATCH 6/6] livepatch v5: clean up usage of the old and new addresses

2014-12-11 Thread Petr Mladek
On Wed 2014-12-10 09:33:09, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 02:50:54PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: > > On Tue 2014-12-09 13:20:09, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 07:05:07PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: > > > > The situation with variables storing the address of the o

Re: [PATCH 6/6] livepatch v5: clean up usage of the old and new addresses

2014-12-10 Thread Josh Poimboeuf
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 02:50:54PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: > On Tue 2014-12-09 13:20:09, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 07:05:07PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: > > > The situation with variables storing the address of the old and new code > > > is not ideal. One is called "func" a

Re: [PATCH 6/6] livepatch v5: clean up usage of the old and new addresses

2014-12-10 Thread Petr Mladek
On Tue 2014-12-09 13:20:09, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 07:05:07PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: > > The situation with variables storing the address of the old and new code > > is not ideal. One is called "func" and the other is called "addr". > > The one is pointer and the other i

Re: [PATCH 6/6] livepatch v5: clean up usage of the old and new addresses

2014-12-09 Thread Josh Poimboeuf
On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 07:05:07PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: > The situation with variables storing the address of the old and new code > is not ideal. One is called "func" and the other is called "addr". > The one is pointer and the other is unsigned long. It makes sense > from the point of how th

[PATCH 6/6] livepatch v5: clean up usage of the old and new addresses

2014-12-09 Thread Petr Mladek
The situation with variables storing the address of the old and new code is not ideal. One is called "func" and the other is called "addr". The one is pointer and the other is unsigned long. It makes sense from the point of how the values are defined. But it might make problems to understand the co