Matt Helsley wrote: > 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). Ok, we already allow future extension by being strict about which flags are taken or not. Then what do we do with logmask ? I prefer it to be a per-syscall value as opposed to a system-wise setting. Oren. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers