>> IMHO we should look at Dmitry patchset and merge the external checkpoint >> code to Oren's patchset in order to checkpoint *one* process and have >> the process to restart itself. At this point, we can begin to talk about >> the restart itself, shall we have the kernel to fork the processes to be >> restarted ? shall we fork from userspace and implement some mechanism to >> have each processes to restart themselves ? etc... >> > > In both approaches, processes restart themselves, in the sense that a > process to be restarted eventually calls "do_restart()" (or equivalent). > > The only question is how processes are created. Andrew's patch creates > everything inside the kernel. I would like to still give it a try outside > the kernel. Everything is ready, except that we need a way to pre-select > a PID for the new child... we never agreed on that one, did we ? what do you mean ? like a clone_with_pid() routine ? > If we go ahead with the kernel-based process creation, it's easy to merge > it to the current patch-set. Both solution are valid. Nevertheless, I would choose the solution sharing existing code and being arch independent. Now, we can start by duplicating code and see later how we could share. But for mainline inclusion, I think that code reuse is a faster path. C. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers