* Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 11:27:32AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Dave Hansen <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > If so, perhaps that can be used as a guide. Will the planned feature > > > > have a similar design? If not, how will it differ? To what extent can > > > > we use that implementation as a tool for understanding what this new > > > > implementation will look like? > > > > > > Yes, we can certainly use it as a guide. However, there are some > > > barriers to being able to do that: > > > > > > dave@nimitz:~/kernels/linux-2.6-openvz$ git diff v2.6.27.10... | diffstat | tail -1 > > > 628 files changed, 59597 insertions(+), 2927 deletions(-) > > > dave@nimitz:~/kernels/linux-2.6-openvz$ git diff v2.6.27.10... | wc > > > 84887 290855 2308745 > > > > > > Unfortunately, the git tree doesn't have that great of a history. It > > > appears that the forward-ports are just applications of huge single > > > patches which then get committed into git. This tree has also > > > historically contained a bunch of stuff not directly related to > > > checkpoint/restart like resource management. > > > > Really, OpenVZ/Virtuozzo does not seem to have enough incentive to merge > > upstream, they only seem to forward-port, keep their tree messy, do minimal > > work to reduce the cross section to the rest of the kernel (so that they can > > manage the forward ports) but otherwise are happy with their carved-out > > niche market. [which niche is also spiced with some proprietary add-ons, > > last i checked, not exactly the contribution environment that breeds a > > healthy flow of patches towards the upstream kernel.] > > Oh, cut the crap! > > > Merging checkpoints instead might give them the incentive to get > > their act together. > > Knowing how much time it takes to beat CPT back into usable shape every time > big kernel rebase is done, OpenVZ/Virtuozzo have every single damn incentive > to have CPT mainlined. So where is the bottleneck? I suspect the effort in having forward ported it across 4 major kernel releases in a single year is already larger than the technical effort it would take to upstream it. Any unreasonable upstream resistence/passivity you are bumping into? 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
