Quoting Cedric Le Goater (clg@xxxxxxxxxx): > > diff -puN ipc/mqueue.c~no-checkpointing-for-sockets ipc/mqueue.c > > --- linux-2.6.git/ipc/mqueue.c~no-checkpointing-for-sockets 2008-10-09 11:56:58.000000000 -0700 > > +++ linux-2.6.git-dave/ipc/mqueue.c 2008-10-09 11:56:58.000000000 -0700 > > @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@ > > */ > > > > #include <linux/capability.h> > > +#include <linux/checkpoint.h> > > #include <linux/init.h> > > #include <linux/pagemap.h> > > #include <linux/file.h> > > @@ -655,6 +656,8 @@ asmlinkage long sys_mq_open(const char _ > > char *name; > > int fd, error; > > > > + process_deny_checkpointing(current); > > + > > mqueue being a file system, i would put the checks in the inode_operations. > > Also, you can't always deny ! I would expect some allow in sys_mq_unlink(). Remember a part of Ingo's motivation is to push c/r developers to address the lacking features that users use most, earlier. So the warnings and subsequent email complaints are what we're after. Hence a single 'checkpointable or not' flag. Given the single flag, how do you know at sys_mq_unlink() whether the process also has an opensocket? Rather than make this tracking facility more complicated and intrusive, if people complain that they couldn't checkpoint bc of a warning about aio, then we implement aio c/r! We don't just try and reduce the amount of time that you can't checkpoint bc of lack of aio c/r support :) -serge _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
