Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 18 Mar 2009 03:51:42 -0400 | From | Oren Laadan <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/3] c/r: Add CR_COPY() macro (v3) |
| |
Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Dave Hansen (dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com): >> On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 16:57 -0800, Dan Smith wrote: >>> DH> Did you convince Nathan that this ends up being a good idea? >>> >>> Technically he hasn't seen this version, but my hopes are not high >>> that he will change his mind. If the feedback is that they're not >>> liked, I'll happily remove them. >> I just figure if Nathan feels that strongly that we'll encounter more >> people who feel even more so. So, I was curious if he changed his mind >> somehow. > > I maintain however that two strong advantages of moving the checkpoint > and restart of simple registers etc into a single function are: > > 1. we won't forget to add (or accidentally lose) one or the > other > 2. any actual special handling at checkpoint or restart, like > the loading of access registers at restart on s390x, > stand out >
I, too, think that this scheme is elegant, and at the same time I, too, think that it obfuscates the code. Since I only touch arch-dependent code only if I really really must, I don't have strong opinion about it ;)
However, a problem with this scheme is that checkpoint and restart are not fully symmetric -- on restart we must sanitize the input data before restoring the registers to that data. I'm not familiar with s390, but it is likely that by not doing so we create a security issue.
Oren.
| |