On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:05:47 -0800 Dave Hansen <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 12:07 -0500, Oren Laadan wrote: > > Checkpoint-restart (c/r): a couple of fixes in preparation for 64bit > > architectures, and a couple of fixes for bugss (comments from Serge > > Hallyn, Sudakvev Bhattiprolu and Nathan Lynch). Updated and tested > > against v2.6.28. > > > > Aiming for -mm. > > Is there anything that we're waiting on before these can go into -mm? I > think the discussion on the first few patches has died down to almost > nothing. They're pretty reviewed-out. Do they need a run in -mm? I > don't think linux-next is quite appropriate since they're not _quite_ > aimed at mainline yet. > I raised an issue a few months ago and got inconclusively waffled at. Let us revisit. I am concerned that this implementation is a bit of a toy, and that we don't know what a sufficiently complete implementation will look like. There is a risk that if we merge the toy we either: a) end up having to merge unacceptably-expensive-to-maintain code to make it a non-toy or b) decide not to merge the unacceptably-expensive-to-maintain code, leaving us with a toy or c) simply cannot work out how to implement the missing functionality. So perhaps we can proceed by getting you guys to fill out the following paperwork: - In bullet-point form, what features are present? - In bullet-point form, what features are missing, and should be added? - Is it possible to briefly sketch out the design of the to-be-added features? For extra marks: - Will any of this involve non-trivial serialisation of kernel objects? If so, that's getting into the unacceptably-expensive-to-maintain space, I suspect. - Does (or will) this feature also support process migration? If not, I'd have thought this to be a showstopper. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
