Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx): > Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 12:45:03PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > >> > >> * Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> > On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 11:27:32AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > >> > > Merging checkpoints instead might give them the incentive to get > >> > > their act together. > >> > > >> > Knowing how much time it takes to beat CPT back into usable shape every time > >> > big kernel rebase is done, OpenVZ/Virtuozzo have every single damn incentive > >> > to have CPT mainlined. > >> > >> So where is the bottleneck? I suspect the effort in having forward ported > >> it across 4 major kernel releases in a single year is already larger than > >> the technical effort it would take to upstream it. Any unreasonable upstream > >> resistence/passivity you are bumping into? > > > > People were busy with netns/containers stuff and OpenVZ/Virtuozzo bugs. > > Yes. Getting the namespaces particularly the network namespace finished > has consumed a lot of work. > > Then we have a bunch of people helping with ill conceived patches that seem > to wear out the patience of people upstream. Al, Greg kh, Linus. > > The whole recent ressurection of the question of we should have a clone > with pid syscall. /me points Alexey started it :) But, Linus asks to start with simple checkpoint/restart patches. Oren's basic patchset pretty much does that, though, right? Patches 1-7 just do a basic single task. 8-10 add simple open files. 11, 13 and 14 do external checkpoint and multiple tasks. Are these an ok place to start, or do these need to be simplified even more? -serge _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
