Takashi Ikebe wrote:
>Sorry, I may mistake the point,
>Chris Wedgwood wrote:
>
>
>>that would also be a problem for live patching too, if you have bad
>>state, you have bad state --- live patching doesn't change that
>>
>>
>What I want to say is takeover may makes memory unstable, because there
>are extra operations to reserve current (unstable) status to memory.
>Live patching never force target process to reserve status to memory. Is
>this make sense?
>
>
Sorry, I misunderstand it, forget above comment, both methods are
possible to destroy memory.
--
Takashi Ikebe
NTT Network Service Systems Laboratories
9-11, Midori-Cho 3-Chome Musashino-Shi,
Tokyo 180-8585 Japan
Tel : +81 422 59 4246, Fax : +81 422 60 4012
e-mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
