Re: live kernel upgrades (was: live kernel patching design)

From: Josh Poimboeuf
Date: Sun Feb 22 2015 - 11:41:43 EST

On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 08:37:58AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 10:46:39AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > - the whole 'consistency model' talk both projects employ
> > reminds me of how we grew 'security modules': where
> > people running various mediocre projects would in the
> > end not seek to create a superior upstream project, but
> > would seek the 'consensus' in the form of cross-acking
> > each others' patches as long as their own code got
> > upstream as well ...
> That's just not the case. The consistency models were used to describe
> the features and the pros and cons of the different approaches.
> The RFC is not a compromise to get "cross-acks". IMO it's an
> improvement on both kpatch and kGraft. See the RFC cover letter [1] and
> the original consistency model discussion [2] for more details.

BTW, I proposed that with my RFC we only need a _single_ consistency

Yes, there have been some suggestions that we should support multiple
consistency models, but I haven't heard any good reasons that would
justify the added complexity.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at