Re: [PATCH v7 02/22] liveupdate: luo_core: integrate with KHO

On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 8:08 AM Mike Rapoport [off-list ref] wrote:

On Sun, Nov 23, 2025 at 01:23:51PM -0500, Pasha Tatashin wrote:

quoted

On Sun, Nov 23, 2025 at 9:17 AM Mike Rapoport [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

+static int __init liveupdate_early_init(void)
+{
+     int err;
+
+     err = luo_early_startup();
+     if (err) {
+             luo_global.enabled = false;
+             luo_restore_fail("The incoming tree failed to initialize properly [%pe], disabling live update\n",
+                              ERR_PTR(err));

What's wrong with a plain panic()?

Jason suggested using the luo_restore_fail() function instead of
inserting panic() right in code somewhere in LUOv3 or earlier. It
helps avoid sprinkling panics in different places, and also in case if
we add the maintenance mode that we have discussed in LUOv6, we could
update this function as a place where that mode would be switched on.

I'd agree if we were to have a bunch of panic()s sprinkled in the code.
With a single one it's easier to parse panic() than lookup what
luo_restore_fail() means.

The issue is that removing luo_restore_fail() removes the only
dependency on luo_internal.h in this patch. This would require me to
move the introduction of that header file to a later patch in the
series, which is difficult to handle via a simple fix-up.

Additionally, I still believe the abstraction is cleaner for future
extensibility (like the maintenance mode), even if it currently wraps
a single panic (which is actually a good thing, I have cleaned-up
things substantially to have  a single point  of panic since v2).
Therefore, it is my preference to keep it as is, unless a full series
is needed to be re-sent.

Well, let's keep it. If we won't see new users or extensions to
luo_restore_fail() we can kill it later.

SGTM.

quoted

Pasha

--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.