Quoting Dave Hansen (dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx): > On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 19:09 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > > > > > Agreed. I personally would like to just get rid of support > > > > for t==current, but don't expect to get anywhere with that > > > > argument :) > > > > > > Along the lines of what Ingo has been asking for, do we need to expose > > > this logic in some way? Do we need a /proc/$$/checkpointable file which > > > says, "I'm not checkpointable because I'm not frozen"? > > > > I really like that. > > > > > Or, is this just a core part of the API: you have to freeze before > > > checkpointing? As such, we'll never move to a place where we're not > > > frozen when checkpointing, so we might as well not even track or expose > > > it. > > > > the only way that would make sense is if sys_checkpoint went ahead > > and frozen them all, right? > > Yeah, I agree with that. > > Does this mean Suka has to do the patch? ;) Heh. Well the patch is mainly on top of your patchset which defines the string holding reasons for uncheckpointability, right? I assume you've modified that since then (too bad we're on a patch model at the moment) so seems easiest for you to toss it on top of your set. Or you can send your latest version and I (or Suka) can write the /proc/$$/checkpointable file. -serge _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
