* Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? It would be nice to get an honest, critical-thinking answer on this. What is it good for right now, and what are the known weaknesses and quirks you can think of. Declaring them upfront is a bonus - not talking about them and us discovering them later at the patch integration stage is a sure receipe for upstream grumpiness. This is an absolutely major featue, touching each and every subsystem in a very fundamental way. It is also a cool capability worth a bit of a maintenance pain, so we'd like to see the pros and cons nicely enumerated, to the best of your knowledge. Most of us are just as feature-happy at heart as you folks are, so if it can be done sanely we are on your side. For example, one of the critical corner points: can an app programmatically determine whether it can support checkpoint/restart safely? Are there warnings/signals/helpers in place that make it a well-defined space, and make the implementation of missing features directly actionable? ( instead of: 'silent breakage' and a wishy-washy boundary between the working and non-working space. Without clear boundaries there's no clear dynamics that extends the 'working' space beyond the demo stage. ) Ingo -- 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
