Nathan Lynch wrote:
> Hello Oren,
>
> Oren Laadan <orenl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> From: Nathan Lynch <ntl@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Support for checkpointing and restarting GPRs, FPU state, DABR, and
>> Altivec state.
>
> ...
>
>> Signed-off-by: Nathan Lynch <ntl@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> ...
>
>> +/* dump the cpu state and registers of a given task */
>> +int checkpoint_write_cpu(struct ckpt_ctx *ctx, struct task_struct *t)
>> +{
>> + struct ckpt_hdr_cpu *cpu_hdr;
>> + int rc;
>> +
>> + rc = -ENOMEM;
>> + cpu_hdr = ckpt_hdr_get(ctx, sizeof(*cpu_hdr), CKPT_HDR_CPU);
>
> This won't build (should be ckpt_hdr_get_type?).
>
> I didn't write this code (I used kzalloc).
>
> In the code I did write, I deliberately preferred the slab allocator to
> the checkpoint-specific APIs. I do not see the advantage of using an
> arbitrarily fixed size special allocation stack that is prone to
> overflow or, worse, data corruption if someone improperly interleaves
> their gets and puts.
>
> I don't believe you were acting in bad faith here, and I'm not sure
> there's an established etiquette. But my signed-off-by line is on this
> patch, and I don't think it belongs there unless I've actually written
> the code or agreed to the modifications.
>
> If you insist on replacing kzalloc with ckpt_hdr_get, then please do so
> in a separate commit with an explanation in the changelog. I'd have no
> objection to that -- it's your tree, after all. Or if you want to munge
> my patch in place, just replace my signoff with yours and note "based on
> work by Nathan Lynch" or something.
You are correct. Originally I was unsure how to modify that, and
later in the flood of other changes I forgot to get back to that
commit message. I apologize for that.
Oren.
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
