On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 08:15 -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 09:05:56AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote: > > On Sat, 2009-02-28 at 15:53 -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > Also the double-use of the op seem not very nice to me. Is there any > > > real life use case were you would have the operation on a file but > > > sometimes not allow checkpoiting? > > > > I'm still reaching here... > > > > I was thinking of /proc. Opening your own /proc/$$/* would certainly be > > considered OK. But, doing it for some other process not in your pid > > namespace would not be OK and would not be checkpointable. > > > > I know we're not quite in real-life territory here, yet, but I'm still > > thinking. > > That mighr be a good enough excuse, I was just wondering what the use > case was. I just thought of another one: unlinked files and directories. They're a pain to checkpoint and won't be supported for a while. Holding open an unlinked file would make a process uncheckpointable for a bit. -- Dave _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
