Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] livepatch: Add garbage collection for shadow variables

[Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>]

On Tue 2023-01-24 16:51:08, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Mon 2023-01-23 14:33:31, Marcos Paulo de Souza wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 01, 2022 at 11:43:50AM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > On Wed 2022-10-26 16:41:18, Marcos Paulo de Souza wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > > 
> > > > This is the v2 of the livepatch shadow GC patches. The changes are minor since
> > > > nobody asked for for big code changes.
> > > > 
> > > > Changes from v1:
> > > > * Reworked commit messages (Petr)
> > > > * Added my SoB which was missing in some patches, or the ordering was wrong. (Josh)
> > > > * Change __klp_shadow_get_or_use to __klp_shadow_get_or_add_locked and add a comment (Petr)
> > > > * Add lockdep_assert_held on __klp_shadow_get_or_add_locked (Petr)
> > > >   about it's meaning (Petr)
> > > > * CCing LKML (Josh)
> > > > 
> > > > Some observations:
> > > > * Petr has reviewed some of the patches that we created. I kept the Reviewed-by
> > > >   tags since he wrote the patches some time ago and now he reviewed them again
> > > >   on the ML.
> > > > * There were questions about possible problems about using klp_shadow_types
> > > >   instead of using ids, but Petr already explained that internally it still uses
> > > >   the id to find the correct livepatch.
> > > > * Regarding the possibility of multiple patches use the same ID, the problem
> > > >   already existed before. Petr suggested using a "stringified" version using
> > > >   name and id, but nobody has commented yet. I can implement such feature in a
> > > >   v3 if necessary.
> > > > 
> > > > Marcos Paulo de Souza (2):
> > > >   livepatch/shadow: Introduce klp_shadow_type structure
> > > >   livepatch/shadow: Add garbage collection of shadow variables
> > > > 
> > > > Petr Mladek (2):
> > > >   livepatch/shadow: Separate code to get or use pre-allocated shadow
> > > >     variable
> > > >   livepatch/shadow: Separate code removing all shadow variables for a
> > > >     given id
> > > 
> > > From my POV, the patchset is ready for pushing upstream.
> > 
> > Petr, what do you think about merging the first two patches, since they just
> > cleanups and simplifications?
> 
> Sounds reasonable to me. I am going to push them by the end of the
> week if nobody complained in the meantime.

Josh accepted the idea in the end so we could actually push the entire
patchset. I am not sure if anyone else would like to review it
so I going to wait a bit longer.

Resume:

I am going to push the entire patchset the following week (Wednesday?)
unless anyone asks for more time or finds a problem.

Best Regards,
Petr