Quoting Greg Kurz (gkurz@xxxxxxxxxx): > 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. Noone is saying that we are not going to do that. -serge _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
