Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Oren Laadan (orenl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx):
>> --- a/checkpoint/Makefile
>> +++ b/checkpoint/Makefile
>> @@ -2,8 +2,8 @@
>> # Makefile for linux checkpoint/restart.
>> #
>>
>> -obj-$(CONFIG_CHECKPOINT) += sys.o objhash.o \
>> +obj-$(CONFIG_CHECKPOINT) += sys.o objhash.o deferqueue.o \
>> checkpoint.o restart.o \
>> ckpt_task.o rstr_task.o \
>> ckpt_mem.o rstr_mem.o \
>> - ckpt_file.o rstr_file.o
>> + ckpt_file.o rstr_file.o \
>
> ?
>
>> +int cr_deferqueue_add(struct cr_ctx *ctx, cr_deferqueue_func_t function,
>> + unsigned int flags, void *data, int size)
>> +{
>> + struct cr_deferqueue *wq;
>> +
>> + wq = kmalloc(sizeof(wq) + size, GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (!wq)
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> + wq->function = function;
>> + wq->flags = flags;
>> + memcpy(wq->data, data, size);
>> +
>> + cr_debug("adding work %p function %p\n", wq, wq->function);
>> + list_add_tail(&ctx->deferqueue, &wq->list);
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>
> Shouldn't the deferqueue be protected by a spinlock here?
Not until we implement concurrent checkpoint/restart. At the moment
it's one task at a time the can access it.
Oren.
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
