From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751899AbaKFS7B (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Nov 2014 13:59:01 -0500 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:48019 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751651AbaKFS67 (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Nov 2014 13:58:59 -0500 Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 10:58:57 -0800 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Vojtech Pavlik Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Seth Jennings , Josh Poimboeuf , Jiri Kosina , Steven Rostedt , live-patching@vger.kernel.org, kpatch@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Kernel Live Patching Message-ID: <20141106185857.GA7106@infradead.org> References: <1415284748-14648-1-git-send-email-sjenning@redhat.com> <20141106184446.GA12779@infradead.org> <20141106185157.GB29272@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141106185157.GB29272@suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 07:51:57PM +0100, Vojtech Pavlik wrote: > I don't think this specific example was generated. > > I also don't think including the whole kpatch automation into the kernel > tree is a viable development model for it. (Same would apply for kGraft > automation.) Why? We (IMHO incorrectly) used the argument of tight coupling to put perf into the kernel tree. Generating kernel live patches is way more integrated that it absolutely has to go into the tree to be able to do proper development on it in an integrated fashion.