Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Daniel Lezcano (daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxx):
>
>> Dan Smith wrote:
>>
>>> The header file makes it pretty clear what is going on,
>>>
>> Certainly for you.
>>
>
> If you're worried about hooking lxc-restart up and that
> being a mess,
Yep, I am worried about that too :)
> i have said that as soon as something hits -mm,
> I will hook up lxc-restart. I do agree, the userspace code
> would be much simpler if we didn't need to do all of the
> process tree creation in userspace :)
Yes and I know there were discussions about this point several times for
the proctree, I won't argue with kernel vs user proctree creation.
But what I understood is you will continue to parse the statefile to
recreate some other resources like a subset of the network and here I am
lost.
Who in the linux community will understand what is checkpointed and what
is restored from the kernel or from the userspace ?
Does this imply someone has to use a specific tool like "restart.c"
within its own tools, assuming this tool is installed in the system or
shall he copy-paste the code of the GPL licensed restart.c to its LGPL
licensed tools ?
I am not arguing against the Checkpoint / Restart, IMO the general
approach is good.
But I am just worried about who will be able to implement a CR solution
using what is provided by the kernel, except a few people who
implemented it.
> I *would* prefer if
> we didn't have to parse the image in userspace. But the
> moment it was decided that portability across kernel versions
> woudl be done by having userspace process the image, we lost
> that fight.
>
Yeah, a big deal.
Thanks
-- Daniel
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
