From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751949AbbJLHlU (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Oct 2015 03:41:20 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-f193.google.com ([209.85.212.193]:34356 "EHLO mail-wi0-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751633AbbJLHlP (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Oct 2015 03:41:15 -0400 Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 09:41:11 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Josh Poimboeuf Cc: Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, live-patching@vger.kernel.org, Michal Marek , Peter Zijlstra , Andy Lutomirski , Borislav Petkov , Linus Torvalds , Andi Kleen , Pedro Alves , Namhyung Kim , Bernd Petrovitsch , Chris J Arges , Andrew Morton , David Vrabel , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , Boris Ostrovsky , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Chris Wright , Alok Kataria , Rusty Russell , Herbert Xu , "David S. Miller" , Pavel Machek , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown , Matt Fleming , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , x86@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 00/23] Compile-time stack metadata validation Message-ID: <20151012074110.GB16543@gmail.com> References: <20150928134547.GA16266@treble.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150928134547.GA16266@treble.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > Hi Ingo, > > Do you have any more objections to these patches? Would you be willing > to apply them? So I still don't like the tool namespace you picked: Git-alike generic naming plus subcommands work so much better that I'm not sure why we are even having that discussion: if you name your tool 'stacktool' and alias everything you have today to under 'stacktool run ...' and add 'stacktool help' as a second, obvious subcommand then you'll have your current syntax and a lot more future flexibility and ability to branch off various functionality a'la Git, perf or kvmtool ... It's an 100% equivalent superset of your current stacktool's parameter structure, so none of your prior objections apply. Thanks, Ingo