Quoting Tejun Heo (tj@xxxxxxxxxx): > Hello, Serge. Hey Tejun :) > On 11/17/2010 04:39 PM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > >> I'm sorry but in-kernel CR already looks like a major misdesign to me. > > > > By this do you mean the very idea of having CR support in the kernel? > > Or our design of it in the kernel? > > The former, I'm afraid. > > > Let's go back to July 2008, at the containers mini-summit, where it > > was unanimously agreed upon that the kernel was the right place > > (Checkpoint/Resetart [CR] under > > http://wiki.openvz.org/Containers/Mini-summit_2008_notes ), and that > > we would start by supporting a single task with no resources. Was > > that whole discussion effectively misguided, in your opinion? Or do > > you feel that since the first steps outlined in that discussion > > we've either "gone too far" or strayed in the subsequent design? > > The conclusion doesn't seem like such a good idea, well, at least to > me for what it's worth. Conclusions at summits don't carry decisive > weight. Of course. It allows us to present at kernel summit and look for early rejections to save us all some time (which we did, at the container mini-summit readout at ksummit 2008), but it would be silly to read anything more into it than that. > It'll still have to prove its worthiness for mainline all the > same 100% agreed. > and in light of already working userland alternative and the Here's where we disagree. If you are right about a viable userland alternative ('already working' isn't even a preqeq in my opinion, so long as it is really viable), then I'm with you, but I'm not buying it at this point. Seriously. Truly. Honestly. I am *not* looking for any extra kernel work at this moment, if we can help it in any way. > expanded area now covered by virtualization, the arguments in this > thread don't seem too strong. -serge _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
