On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:23:20AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On Tue, 2009-04-14 at 21:04 +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > > > Right while I have opinions on some things in this list, I didn't > > > mean to imply positions on these items. My question was: are > > > there are differences you want to call out? > > > > Sorry? "none needed" is relevant to only item 3. If tasks don't > > dissapear during checkpoint, why would netns dissapear. > > Taking refcount on checkpoint(2) is likely unneeded. > > > > But it's low-level detail anyway. > > I guess it is a matter of whether we consider a task that gets unfrozen > a kernel bug or not. If we don't take refcounts and we do reference an > object that disappears, then we *certainly* have a kernel bug that can > crash the kernel. If we take refcounts, we at least limit the ways in > which the kernel can crash when something screwy happens. > > On the other hand, the objhash is a kinda weird way to do it. Taking > and releasing arbitrary refcounts on arbitrary kernel objects one level > too much of abstraction for me. Hm, I take this objection back (refcounts at checkpoint(2) time). It's easier and safer to always grab it when putting checkpointed object to hash/list/whatever to maintain refcount correct. On context destroy, every object is put regardless of whether it's checkpointing or restarting. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
