On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 12:45 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > Are you saying that the message should identify the child instead of > > the parent as the uncheckpointable task? > > Yes. The parent may have opened the fd (or, importantly, may NOT have) > but the child is the one now getting that 'dirty' fd and being newly > marked uncheckpointable. Yeah. It is kinda the parent's *fault* but this is the spot where we've chosen to 'taint' the child. If I were looking back in the logs, I'd be wondering from where the child's 'taint' flag came from. This is the spot I should be looking for. -- Dave _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
