On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 12:24:28PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
>
> Introduce CAP_SYS_PERFMON capability devoted to secure system performance
> monitoring and observability operations so that CAP_SYS_PERFMON would
> assist CAP_SYS_ADMIN capability in its governing role for perf_events,
>
Quoting Nathan Lynch (n...@pobox.com):
Nathan Lynch n...@pobox.com wrote:
Oren Laadan wrote:
Nathan Lynch wrote:
What doesn't work:
* restarting a 32-bit task from a 64-bit task and vice versa
Is there a test to bail if we attempt to checkpoint such tasks ?
No,
Quoting Benjamin Herrenschmidt (b...@kernel.crashing.org):
On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 18:44 -0500, Oren Laadan wrote:
* Anything that is decided at compiled time should probably go to the arch-
dependent header.
* Anything that can change at boot time (e.g., for x86 that would include
the
Quoting Benjamin Herrenschmidt (b...@kernel.crashing.org):
+struct cr_hdr_cpu {
+ struct pt_regs pt_regs;
+ /* relevant fields from thread_struct */
+ double fpr[32][TS_FPRWIDTH];
+ unsigned int fpscr;
+ int fpexc_mode;
+ /* unsigned int align_ctl; this is never
Quoting Oren Laadan (or...@cs.columbia.edu):
+static void cr_hdr_init(struct cr_hdr *hdr, __s16 type, __s16 len, __u32
parent)
+{
+ hdr-type = type;
+ hdr-len = len;
+ hdr-parent = parent;
+}
+
This function is rather generic and useful to non-arch-dependent and other
Quoting Dave Hansen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I'm debating whether this is worth it. It makes this a bit more clean
looking, but doesn't seriously enhance readability. But, I do think
it helps a bit.
Thoughts?
Absolutely. do_init_bootmem_node() is *still* a bit largish,
but far better broken
