On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 09:04 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > 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 Serge, It's exactly what I meant before, the tracking facility would be awfully complicated. It cannot be done that way. But there's also something awkward with the flag thing : can you provide right now an exhaustive list of all the places where you must raise it ? I'd rather do some heavy checking at checkpoint time. Greg. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
