On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 23:47:49 +0200 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > The other problem that you really need to solve is interface > stability. What you are creating is a binary representation > of many kernel internal data structures, so in our common > rules, you have to make sure that you remain forward and > backward compatible. Simply saying that you need to run > an identical kernel when restarting from a checkpoint is not > enough IMHO. OTOH, making one of these checkpoint files go into any 2.6.x kernel seems like a very high bar, to the point, perhaps, of killing this feature entirely. There could be a case for viewing sys_restore() as being a lot like sys_init_module() - a view into kernel internals that goes beyond the normal user-space ABI, and beyond the stability guarantee. It might be possible to create a certain amount of version portability with a modversions-like mechanism, but it sure seems hard to do better than that. jon _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
