Matt Helsley wrote: [...] >>>> s/ckpt_obj_collect/ckpt_collect_file/ >>> OK. Seems like we might recurse here though if the file is an epoll >>> file and there's a cycle in the epoll sets (e.g. epoll set A includes the fd >>> for epoll set B, epoll set B includes the fd for epoll set A). >>> So I think I'll do: >> I doubt if an epoll file can epoll an epoll file ... >> (eg. see line 1265 in fs/eventpoll.c) > > I am certain it can. The testcase I have proves it and the man page mentions > it too. Since it has a poll op I believe it can be epoll'd (line 691 of > fs/eventpoll.c). > > I haven't double checked, but I believe the line you cited just prevents the > epoll set from including its own fd. Duh ... you are totally correct. Sorry for the noise. [...] >>> Otherwise I wonder if it would be better to join the prefmt and fmt >>> strings by just defining our own, new, conversion specifiers. >>> >> Thought about it, but that would limit us in the conversion specifiers >> that we can use, because many are used by printf already. Perhaps one >> way to do it is use >> "%Zxyz" >> where "%Z" tells the following letters indicate a ckpt_write_err() >> format, and then "xyz" are the letters from the current @prefmt. > > Would %( work better? The ( suggests that there's more to it. Sounds cool. Care to work out the details with a patch ? Oren. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
