Re: [RFC v1 1/3] luo: Live Update Orchestrator

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>]

On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 02:30:25PM -0400, Pasha Tatashin wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 1:50 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 12:35:20PM -0400, Pasha Tatashin wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 9:40 AM Andy Shevchenko
> > > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 02:40:09AM +0000, Pasha Tatashin wrote:

...

> > > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(liveupdate_state_normal);
> > > >
> > > > No namespace?
> > >
> > > Namespace is 'liveupdate_', all public interfaces have this prefix,
> > > private functions are prefixed with luo_ where it makes sense.
> >
> > No, I'm talking about export namespace. Why does the entire kernel need these APIs?
> 
> These functions are intended for use by drivers and other subsystems
> participating in the live update.

Sure. Why can't they import API namespace when needed?
Btw, is this feature switchable? Then why would the rest of the kernel
need to see these APIs or load them?

> They allow these components to
> determine, during boot, whether to restore their state from the
> serialized state, or, during runtime, whether a live update is in the
> prepared state, causing different behavior compared to normal mode
> (e.g., prohibiting DMA mappings modifications, binding/unbinding,
> etc.).

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko