Re: [PATCH] livepatch: Add KLP_IDLE state

[Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@redhat.com>]

On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 11:09:54AM +0800, zhangwarden@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Wardenjohn <zhangwarden@gmail.com>
> 
> In livepatch, using KLP_UNDEFINED is seems to be confused.
> When kernel is ready, livepatch is ready too, which state is
> idle but not undefined. What's more, if one livepatch process
> is finished, the klp state should be idle rather than undefined.
> 
> Therefore, using KLP_IDLE to replace KLP_UNDEFINED is much better
> in reading and understanding.
> ---
>  include/linux/livepatch.h     |  1 +
>  kernel/livepatch/patch.c      |  2 +-
>  kernel/livepatch/transition.c | 24 ++++++++++++------------
>  3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/livepatch.h b/include/linux/livepatch.h
> index 9b9b38e89563..c1c53cd5b227 100644
> --- a/include/linux/livepatch.h
> +++ b/include/linux/livepatch.h
> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
>  
>  /* task patch states */
>  #define KLP_UNDEFINED	-1
> +#define KLP_IDLE       -1

Hi Wardenjohn,

Quick question, does this patch intend to:

- Completely replace KLP_UNDEFINED with KLP_IDLE
- Introduce KLP_IDLE as an added, fourth potential state
- Introduce KLP_IDLE as synonym of sorts for KLP_UNDEFINED under certain
  conditions

I ask because this patch leaves KLP_UNDEFINED defined and used in other
parts of the tree (ie, init/init_task.c), yet KLP_IDLE is added and
continues to use the same -1 enumeration.

--
Joe