On Tue, 2009-04-14 at 19:27 +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > > Also, since Dave introduced the fops->checkpoint(), we (or at least I) > > have been struck by the ugly assymetry with checkpoint() being in fops, > > and restart() not. Do you have an idea for fixing that? > > Module can legally support C/R for its files. > > In the end it most certainly will end up with module registering restart > hook for file type N. > > Or module registering hook to restart object type N. Yeah, that was my expectation as well. There's a point when we just have too many kinds of checkpoint objects and the switch statements get out of hand. Oversimplified, of course, but: init_restart_handler(CR_FD_GENERIC, restore_generic_fd); init_restart_handler(CR_FD_SOCKET, restore_socket); init_restart_handler(CR_FD_PIPE, restore_pipe); The only question to me is whether we allow the handler functions to do further reading of the checkpoint image or whether the higher-level code should be feeding them all the data they'll need in some way. -- Dave _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
