Quoting Serge E. Hallyn (serue@xxxxxxxxxx):
> Quoting Oren Laadan (orenl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx):
> > From: Dave Hansen <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > This marks ext[234] as being checkpointable. There will be many
> > more to do this to, but this is a start.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/ext2/dir.c | 1 +
> > fs/ext2/file.c | 2 ++
> > fs/ext3/dir.c | 1 +
> > fs/ext3/file.c | 1 +
> > fs/ext4/dir.c | 1 +
> > fs/ext4/file.c | 1 +
> > 6 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/ext2/dir.c b/fs/ext2/dir.c
> > index 2999d72..4f1dd79 100644
> > --- a/fs/ext2/dir.c
> > +++ b/fs/ext2/dir.c
> > @@ -721,4 +721,5 @@ const struct file_operations ext2_dir_operations = {
> > .compat_ioctl = ext2_compat_ioctl,
> > #endif
> > .fsync = ext2_sync_file,
> > + .checkpoint = generic_file_checkpoint,
>
> The checkpoint() method is only defined in struct file_operations if
> CONFIG_CHECKPOINT=y. So this can't possibly compile when
> CONFIG_CHECKPOINT=n...
BTW i think the better way to handle it is not to put everything under
ifdefs, but rather always let file_operations have the ->checkpoint()
fn, and just make generic_file_checkpoint() a dummy function when
CONFIG_CHECKPOINT=n.
-serge
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
