On Thu, 10 Aug 2017, Jason Baron wrote:
>
>
> On 08/10/2017 07:12 AM, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> >
> > > Ok - associating the "atomic replace" with the patch itself makes sense to
> > > me.
> > > It would also basically work, I think with the patch I proposed except for
> > > the
> > > case where
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017, Jason Baron wrote:
>
>
> On 08/10/2017 07:12 AM, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> >
> > > Ok - associating the "atomic replace" with the patch itself makes sense to
> > > me.
> > > It would also basically work, I think with the patch I proposed except for
> > > the
> > > case where
On 08/10/2017 07:12 AM, Miroslav Benes wrote:
Ok - associating the "atomic replace" with the patch itself makes sense to me.
It would also basically work, I think with the patch I proposed except for the
case where the the "atomic replace" was on top of several non-"atomic replace"
patches.
On 08/10/2017 07:12 AM, Miroslav Benes wrote:
Ok - associating the "atomic replace" with the patch itself makes sense to me.
It would also basically work, I think with the patch I proposed except for the
case where the the "atomic replace" was on top of several non-"atomic replace"
patches.
> Ok - associating the "atomic replace" with the patch itself makes sense to me.
> It would also basically work, I think with the patch I proposed except for the
> case where the the "atomic replace" was on top of several non-"atomic replace"
> patches. The reason is that the "atomic replace" I
> Ok - associating the "atomic replace" with the patch itself makes sense to me.
> It would also basically work, I think with the patch I proposed except for the
> case where the the "atomic replace" was on top of several non-"atomic replace"
> patches. The reason is that the "atomic replace" I
On 07/21/2017 09:06 AM, Miroslav Benes wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017, Jason Baron wrote:
Hi,
In testing livepatch, I found that when doing cumulative patches, if a patched
function is completed reverted by a subsequent patch (back to its original
state)
livepatch does not revert the funtion
On 07/21/2017 09:06 AM, Miroslav Benes wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017, Jason Baron wrote:
Hi,
In testing livepatch, I found that when doing cumulative patches, if a patched
function is completed reverted by a subsequent patch (back to its original
state)
livepatch does not revert the funtion
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017, Jason Baron wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In testing livepatch, I found that when doing cumulative patches, if a patched
> function is completed reverted by a subsequent patch (back to its original
> state)
> livepatch does not revert the funtion to its original state. Specifically, if
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017, Jason Baron wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In testing livepatch, I found that when doing cumulative patches, if a patched
> function is completed reverted by a subsequent patch (back to its original
> state)
> livepatch does not revert the funtion to its original state. Specifically, if
10 matches
Mail list logo
