"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Quoting Nathan Lynch (ntl@xxxxxxxxx): > > Please consider this and a following patch. > > > > >From a0fb96aa41c4d360559013cfd7f32f07f449c1c4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > From: Nathan Lynch <ntl@xxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 22:23:02 -0500 > > Subject: [PATCH] checkpoint: make files_deny_checkpointing print task name and pid > > > > This lets the developer know *which* task performed an action that > > prevents checkpoint. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Nathan Lynch <ntl@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > fs/file.c | 2 +- > > fs/open.c | 2 +- > > include/linux/checkpoint.h | 13 +++++++------ > > 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/file.c b/fs/file.c > > index 0501af6..fcb2803 100644 > > --- a/fs/file.c > > +++ b/fs/file.c > > @@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ static void __scan_files_for_cr(struct files_struct *files) > > continue; > > if (cr_file_supported(f)) > > continue; > > - files_deny_checkpointing(files); > > + files_deny_checkpointing(current, files); > > Ah but you can't do this, because __scan_files_for_cr is called > from dupfd which is called during copy_files, right? Are you saying that the message should identify the child instead of the parent as the uncheckpointable task? _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
