On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 07:51:57PM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Oren Laadan (orenl@xxxxxxxxxxx):
<snip>
> > > More practically, requiring userspace to pass over a flag
> > > consisting of CKPT_DBG_MEM|CKPT_DBG|FILE|CKPT_DBG|TASK, and
> > > handle corresponding usage flags, is not nice.
> >
> > I agree with you on about this. Maybe we want a better
> > interface ?
> >
> > Which brings me to this random thought: maybe we want to
> > make the fourth argument of sys_{checkpoint,restart} a
> > structure, to make it easier to extend it in the future
> > without having to go throw a clone3-like hell...
Adding new kernel interfaces is supposed to be somewhat hellish.
> >
> > Specifically, this structure could now be:
> >
> > struct ckpt_args {
> > int version;
> > int logfd;
> > int logmask;
> > };
> >
> > (or use union checkpoint {} and union restart {} to tell
> > between checkpoint- and restart-related args.
>
> Well I don't like passing structs to the kernel actually (and
Let's not do this. I agree that passing structs, when unnecessary,
is gross. Especially if it gets used to extend the arguments
passed via the syscall interface (new flag values I don't mind).
Cheers,
-Matt Helsley
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
