On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 12:45:03PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 11:27:32AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > 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? People were busy with netns/containers stuff and OpenVZ/Virtuozzo bugs. -- 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
