* Oren Laadan <orenl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >>> By the way, why don't you introduce the reverse operation ? > >> I think implementing the reverse operation will be a nightmare, IMHO > >> it is safe to say we deny checkpointing for the process life-cycle > >> either if the created resource was destroyed before we initiate the > >> checkpoint. > > > > it's also a not too interesting case. The end goal is to just be able to > > checkpoint everything that matters - in the long run there simply wont > > be many places that are marked 'cannot checkpoint'. > > > > So the ability to deny a checkpoint is a transitional feature - a > > flexible CR todo list in essence - but also needed for > > applications/users that want to rely on CR being a dependable facility. > > > > It would be bad for most of the practical usecases of checkpointing to > > allow the checkpointing of an app, just to see it break on restore due > > to lost context. > > Actually it need not wait for restore to fail - it can fail during the > checkpoint, as soon as the unsupported feature is encountered. correct, that is the idea. Ingo _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
