On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 10:28 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 18:45 +0200, Greg Kurz wrote: > > 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 ? > > Greg, that's just pure FUD. We don't say that spinlocks are a bad thing > because we can't come up with an exhaustive list of places where we need > locking. > > We'll do plenty of checks at checkpoint time. > > We'll do plenty of checks at runtime. > > Neither will work completely on its own, and neither will be exhaustive. > The way this will work is just as Serge said: in true Linux style, we'll > add more places users of process_deny_checkpoint() incrementally as we > find them and as people complain. We'll also be incrementally removing > them as we add functionality. > > -- Dave > Well then I misunderstood the purpose your initial postings. Sorry. :) -- Gregory Kurz gkurz@xxxxxxxxxx Software Engineer @ IBM/Meiosys http://www.ibm.com Tel +33 (0)534 638 479 Fax +33 (0)561 400 420 "Anarchy is about taking complete responsibility for yourself." Alan Moore. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
