Re: [RFC PATCH 6/9] livepatch: create per-task consistency model

From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com>,
	live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Seth Jennings <sjenning@redhat.com>,
	Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 6/9] livepatch: create per-task consistency model
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 15:32:45 +0100 (CET)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1502121529420.20672@pobox.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150212130817.GV23123@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On Thu, 12 Feb 2015, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> And what's wrong with using known good spots like the freezer?

Quoting Tejun from the thread Jiri Slaby likely had on mind:

"The fact that they may coincide often can be useful as a guideline or 
whatever but I'm completely against just mushing it together when it isn't 
correct.  This kind of things quickly lead to ambiguous situations where 
people are not sure about the specific semantics or guarantees of the 
construct and implement weird voodoo code followed by voodoo fixes.  We 
already had a full round of that with the kernel freezer itself, where 
people thought that the freezer magically makes PM work properly for a 
subsystem.  Let's please not do that again."

The whole thread begins here, in case everything hasn't been covered here 
yet:

	https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/2/328

Thanks again for looking into this,

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs