Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 19:24 -0400, Oren Laadan wrote:
>> +static int checkpoint_task_objs(struct ckpt_ctx *ctx, struct task_struct *t)
>> +{
>> + struct ckpt_hdr_task_objs *h;
>> + int mm_objref;
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + mm_objref = checkpoint_mm_obj(ctx, t);
>> + ckpt_debug("memory: objref %d\n", mm_objref);
>> + if (mm_objref < 0)
>> + return mm_objref;
>> +
>> + h = ckpt_hdr_get_type(ctx, sizeof(*h), CKPT_HDR_TASK_OBJS);
>> + if (!h)
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> + h->mm_objref = mm_objref;
>> +
>> + ret = ckpt_write_obj(ctx, (struct ckpt_hdr *) h);
>> + ckpt_hdr_put(ctx, h);
>> + return ret;
>> +}
>
> I wonder if this gets easier or harder to parse if you do this instead:
>
> ret = ckpt_write_obj(ctx, &h.h);
>
> It is kinda what we already do for things that use container_of().
>
Fine with me.
Oren
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
