On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11/19/2010 05:38 PM, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 11/19/2010 05:27 PM, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: >>>> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> The paragon of absurdity is struct task_struct::did_exec . >>>>> >>>>> Yeah, then go and figure how to do that in a way which would be useful >>>>> for other purposes too instead of trying to shove the whole >>>>> checkpointer inside the kernel. It sure would be harder but hey >>>>> that's the way it is. >>>> >>>> System call for one bit? This is ridiculous. >>> >>> Why not just a flag in proc entry? It's a frigging single bit. >> >> Because /proc/*/did_exec useless to anyone but C/R (even for reading!). > > I don't think you'll need a full file. Just shove it in status or > somewhere. Your argument is completely absurd. So, because exporting > single bit is so horrible to everyone else, you want to shove the > whole frigging checkpointer inside the kernel? > >> Because code is much simpler: >> >> tsk->did_exec = !!tsk_img->did_exec; >> + >> __u8 did_exec; > > Sigh, yeah, except for the horror show to create tsk_img. task_struct image work is common for both userspace C/R and in-kernel. You _have_ to define it. Simpler code is only first line. > Your "paragon of absurdity" is did_exec which is only ever used > to decide whether setpgid() should fail with -EACCES, seriously? > Here's a thought. Ignore it for now and concentrate on more > relevant problems. You're so newjerseyly now. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
