On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 12:25 -0400, Oren Laadan wrote: > Dave Hansen wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 15:56 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > >> If you like I can take a shot at whipping up the new mini-fs, though > >> I think you're having fun :) > > > > There are a couple of concepts that just get easier once you start > > thinking of this as an entire fs too. For instance, cr_ctx just becomes > > crfs_sb. For things like dumping in parallel, we get locking and > > lifetime rules for free from the vfs. > > Well, 'cr_ctx' is per-checkpoint, while crfs_sb will single for the > entire system. So you'll need to add something per checkpoint anyway. I was thinking of it more along the lines of requiring a new filesystem mount for each checkpoint. That way, we dispose of the checkpoint by the act of unmounting. > What other concepts get easier ? The amount of infrastructure needed to do lookups for shared objects goes to zero. We don't need a hash table or ids with which we index into that table. Filesystems are good at giving things names and finding them later. -- Dave _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers