On Thu, 1 Feb 2018, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 04:08:14PM +0100, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> > On Thu, 1 Feb 2018, Joe Lawrence wrote:
> >
> > > On 02/01/2018 08:49 AM, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Well, one more thing. I think there is a problem with shadow variables.
On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 04:08:14PM +0100, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2018, Joe Lawrence wrote:
>
> > On 02/01/2018 08:49 AM, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, one more thing. I think there is a problem with shadow variables.
> > > Similar to callbacks situation. Shadow variables
On Thu, 1 Feb 2018, Joe Lawrence wrote:
> On 02/01/2018 08:49 AM, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> >
> > Well, one more thing. I think there is a problem with shadow variables.
> > Similar to callbacks situation. Shadow variables cannot be destroyed the
> > way it is shown in our samples. Cumulative pat
On 02/01/2018 08:49 AM, Miroslav Benes wrote:
>
> Well, one more thing. I think there is a problem with shadow variables.
> Similar to callbacks situation. Shadow variables cannot be destroyed the
> way it is shown in our samples. Cumulative patches want to preserve
> everything as much as poss
On Thu, 25 Jan 2018, Petr Mladek wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the atomic replace allows to create cumulative patches. They
> are useful when you maintain many livepatches and want to remove
> one that is lower on the stack. In addition it is very useful when
> more patches touch the same function and there a
Hi,
the atomic replace allows to create cumulative patches. They
are useful when you maintain many livepatches and want to remove
one that is lower on the stack. In addition it is very useful when
more patches touch the same function and there are dependencies
between them.
This is my rework base
6 matches
Mail list logo
