[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160901124522.GK23045@uranus.lan>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 15:45:22 +0300
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>,
Dmitry Safonov <dsafonov@...tuozzo.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...tuozzo.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 6/6] x86/signal: add SA_{X32,IA32}_ABI sa_flags
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 02:27:44PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Hi Oleg,
> > can I have your acks or reviewed-by tags for 4-5-6 patches in the series,
> > or there is something left to fix?
>
> Well yes... Although let me repeat, I am not sure I personally like
> the very idea of 3/6 and 6/6. But as I already said I do not feel I
> understand the problem space enough, so I won't argue.
>
> However, let me ask again. Did you consider another option? Why criu
> can't exec a dummy 32-bit binary before anything else?
I'm not really sure how this would look then. If I understand you
correctly you propose to exec dummy 32bit during "forking" stage
where we're recreating a process tree, before anything else. If
true this implies that we will need two criu engines: one compiled
with 64 bit and (same) second but compiled with 32 bits, no?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists