On 09/06/2016 05:57 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 02:58:48AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 24.08.16 at 04:22, wrote:
Livepatch expected at some point to be able to print the
build-id during bootup, which it did not. The reason is
that
>>> On 06.09.16 at 18:57, wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 02:58:48AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 24.08.16 at 04:22, wrote:
>> > Livepatch expected at some point to be able to print the
>> > build-id during bootup, which it did not. The
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 02:58:48AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 24.08.16 at 04:22, wrote:
> > Livepatch expected at some point to be able to print the
> > build-id during bootup, which it did not. The reason is
> > that xen_build_init and livepatch_init are both
>>> On 24.08.16 at 04:22, wrote:
> Livepatch expected at some point to be able to print the
> build-id during bootup, which it did not. The reason is
> that xen_build_init and livepatch_init are both __initcall
> type routines. This meant that when livepatch_init called
>
Livepatch expected at some point to be able to print the
build-id during bootup, which it did not. The reason is
that xen_build_init and livepatch_init are both __initcall
type routines. This meant that when livepatch_init called
xen_build_id, it would return -ENODATA as build_id_len was
not