Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1350066 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH][v4] livepatch/ppc: Enable livepatching on powerpc

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH][v4] livepatch/ppc: Enable livepatching on powerpc Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz> - 2016-03-04 10:40 +0100
    Re: [PATCH][v4] livepatch/ppc: Enable livepatching on powerpc Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> - 2016-03-07 04:40 +0100

#1350066 — Re: [PATCH][v4] livepatch/ppc: Enable livepatching on powerpc

Hi,

On Fri, 4 Mar 2016, Michael Ellerman wrote:

> Hi Petr,
> 
> On Thu, 2016-03-03 at 17:52 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> 
> > From: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>
> >
> > Changelog v4:
> > 	1. Renamed klp_matchaddr() to klp_get_ftrace_location()
> > 	   and used it just to convert the function address.
> > 	2. Synced klp_write_module_reloc() with s390(); made it
> > 	   inline, no error message, return -ENOSYS
> 
> OK.
> 
> > 	3. Added an error message when including
> > 	   powerpc/include/asm/livepatch.h without HAVE_LIVEPATCH
> 
> I don't know why we want to do that, I don't see how it is helpful. It doesn't
> even do what it says:
> 
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_LIVEPATCH
> ...
> > +#else /* CONFIG_LIVEPATCH */
> > +#error Include linux/livepatch.h, not asm/livepatch.h
> > +#endif /* CONFIG_LIVEPATCH */
> 
> If I turn on CONFIG_LIVEPATCH then I can quite happily include asm/livepatch.h
> and not get an error. So the check doesn't do what the message suggests.

Well, yes. I looked into the archives to find if there was a reason to 
even introduce it. It was not. It came up during a review process of the 
livepatching patch set somehow and we left it there. I only changed the 
error message to the mentioned one because we deemed it was better.
 
> If we *really* want to prevent people from including asm/livepatch.h then it
> needs to check for _LINUX_LIVEPATCH_H_. But there's no reason I can see why we
> *must* prevent people from including asm/livepatch.h.
>
> And on x86 & s390 it does:
> 
>   #else
>   #error Live patching support is disabled; check CONFIG_LIVEPATCH
>   #endif
> 
> Which is also not helpful AFAICS, and just likely to break the build for no
> good reason.

This is the old message. See 383bf44d1a8b ("livepatch: change the error 
message in asm/livepatch.h header files").

Anyway, it really does not mean much. I'll send a patch for s390 and x86 
to remove it completely in a minute.

Thanks,
Miroslav

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1351285

On Fri, 2016-03-04 at 10:31 +0100, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > On Thu, 2016-03-03 at 17:52 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > 
> > >     3. Added an error message when including
> > >        powerpc/include/asm/livepatch.h without HAVE_LIVEPATCH
> > 
> > I don't know why we want to do that, I don't see how it is helpful. It doesn't
> > even do what it says:
> > 
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_LIVEPATCH
> > ...
> > > +#else /* CONFIG_LIVEPATCH */
> > > +#error Include linux/livepatch.h, not asm/livepatch.h
> > > +#endif /* CONFIG_LIVEPATCH */
> > 
> > If I turn on CONFIG_LIVEPATCH then I can quite happily include asm/livepatch.h
> > and not get an error. So the check doesn't do what the message suggests.
> 
> Well, yes. I looked into the archives to find if there was a reason to 
> even introduce it. It was not. It came up during a review process of the 
> livepatching patch set somehow and we left it there. I only changed the 
> error message to the mentioned one because we deemed it was better.

Thanks for looking into it.

> > And on x86 & s390 it does:
> > 
> >   #else
> >   #error Live patching support is disabled; check CONFIG_LIVEPATCH
> >   #endif
> 
> This is the old message. See 383bf44d1a8b ("livepatch: change the error 
> message in asm/livepatch.h header files").
> 
> Anyway, it really does not mean much. I'll send a patch for s390 and x86 
> to remove it completely in a minute.

Thanks. I know it's not a big deal, but the kernel is complicated enough
without extra code we don't really need :)

cheers

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web