Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 06:44:36PM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: >> Quoting Alexey Dobriyan (adobriyan@xxxxxxxxx): >>> And since you guys showed that just idea of in-kernel checkpointing is not >>> rejected outright, it doesn't mean that you can drag every single idea too. >> Can you rephrase here? I have no idea what you mean by 'drag every single >> idea' > > complexity > +-|------------------------------------------------|----------------------|--> > hypervisor C/R in-kernel C/R C/R for unpriviledged > C/R with "leaks" > c/r for unprivileged users is indeed more complex - requires more care. Keep in mind, however, that most of that are sanity checks that we would like to have in the code anyway. c/r with "leaks" is actually a subset of the code that prevents leaks: simply comment out the leak detection :) Oren. > I personally thought in-kernel C/R will be rejected outright, but it wasn't. > This in theory doesn't mean other two issues should be accepted. > _______________________________________________ > Containers mailing list > Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers > _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
