From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oren Laadan Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] powerpc: catch 32/64bit mix Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:32:40 -0500 Message-ID: <4B0D9468.3050606@cs.columbia.edu> References: <20091125162250.GA9034@us.ibm.com> <4B0D7F96.6050100@cs.columbia.edu> <20091125191617.GA11814@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20091125191617.GA11814-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: "Serge E. Hallyn" Cc: Linux Containers List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Oren Laadan (orenl-eQaUEPhvms7ENvBUuze7eA@public.gmane.org): >> I can't recall a convincing reason why restore_{thread,cpu}() should >> run so late, or in particular after restore_task_objs(). >> >> I think the original motivation was to avoid the point-of-no-return >> at a very early stage. However this is only useful for self-restart. >> >> If we ever want self-restart to fail gracefully should something go >> wrong, we should be prepared to undo any changes to the process - >> on the error path. While not beyond reach, it isn't a top priority. >> >> Does calling restore_{thread,cpu}() earlier solve the problem ? > > Yes, it does. > >> BTW, this is also relevant for x86-64... > > and also 31-bit s390 Excellent. Then I'll change the order for v19-rc2. Thanks, Oren.