On Thu, 20 Dec 2018, Joao Moreira wrote:
> On 12/20/18 12:33 AM, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Dec 2018, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 19 Dec 2018, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> >>
> >>> Also the commit message needs an analysis of the performance impacts.
> >>
> >> Agreed. Especially as
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 09:33:05AM +0100, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> > > > Though, upstream, almost everybody seems to use kpatch-build, for which
> > > > this patch doesn't help. And people will continue to do so until we
> > > > have decent
On 12/20/18 12:33 AM, Miroslav Benes wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018, Jiri Kosina wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
Also the commit message needs an analysis of the performance impacts.
Agreed. Especially as it's expected (*) to be completely in the noise
particularly for the
On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 09:33:05AM +0100, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> > > Though, upstream, almost everybody seems to use kpatch-build, for which
> > > this patch doesn't help. And people will continue to do so until we
> > > have decent source-based tooling. Will the klp-convert patches be
> > >
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2018, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> > Also the commit message needs an analysis of the performance impacts.
>
> Agreed. Especially as it's expected (*) to be completely in the noise
> particularly for the kernel, it'd be good to have that
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > This option only makes sense for source-based patch generation, so isn't
> > > it a bit premature to make this change without proper source-based patch
> > > tooling?
> >
> > The reality is though that before the full-fledged patch tooling
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 05:58:53PM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2018, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> > This option only makes sense for source-based patch generation, so isn't
> > it a bit premature to make this change without proper source-based patch
> > tooling?
>
> The reality is
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> This option only makes sense for source-based patch generation, so isn't
> it a bit premature to make this change without proper source-based patch
> tooling?
The reality is though that before the full-fledged patch tooling exists,
people are
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 03:17:44PM +0100, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> GCC 9 introduces a new option, -flive-patching. It disables certain
> optimizations which could make a compilation unsafe for later live
> patching of the running kernel.
>
> The option is used only if CONFIG_LIVEPATCH is enabled
GCC 9 introduces a new option, -flive-patching. It disables certain
optimizations which could make a compilation unsafe for later live
patching of the running kernel.
The option is used only if CONFIG_LIVEPATCH is enabled and $(CC)
supports it.
Signed-off-by: Miroslav Benes
---
Makefile | 4
10 matches
Mail list logo
