On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 02:25:06AM -0700, Chris Wedgwood wrote: > > The call switching folks have been doing live patching at least > > since I worked on it, over 25 years ago. This is not just > > marketing. > > That still doesn't explain *why* live patching is needed. The more optimization a modern compiler does the less practical a patching approach seems for anything but very trivial fixes. I'd try a shared library based approach for on the fly updates. Ralf - 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/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH x86_64] Live Patching Function on 2.6.11.7
- From: Chris Friesen <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH x86_64] Live Patching Function on 2.6.11.7
- References:
- [PATCH x86_64] Live Patching Function on 2.6.11.7
- From: Takashi Ikebe <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH x86_64] Live Patching Function on 2.6.11.7
- From: Chris Wedgwood <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH x86_64] Live Patching Function on 2.6.11.7
- From: Takashi Ikebe <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH x86_64] Live Patching Function on 2.6.11.7
- From: Chris Wedgwood <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH x86_64] Live Patching Function on 2.6.11.7
- From: Takashi Ikebe <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH x86_64] Live Patching Function on 2.6.11.7
- From: Chris Wedgwood <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH x86_64] Live Patching Function on 2.6.11.7
- From: Paul Jackson <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH x86_64] Live Patching Function on 2.6.11.7
- From: Chris Wedgwood <[email protected]>
- [PATCH x86_64] Live Patching Function on 2.6.11.7
- Prev by Date: Re: GPL violation by CorAccess?
- Next by Date: [Patch] Staircase cpu scheduler v11
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH x86_64] Live Patching Function on 2.6.11.7
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH x86_64] Live Patching Function on 2.6.11.7
- Index(es):
 |