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

[Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>]

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
model.

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.

-- 
Josh