On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 11:27 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Nathan Lynch (ntl@xxxxxxxxx): > > On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 10:10 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > > I'm asking whether you are intending to later on change the checkpoint > > > API to allow an external task to checkpoint a pid-init process, rather than > > > the pid-init process having to initiate it itself. > > > > No, that is not the intention. I can see how that would be problematic > > for those wanting to run minimally-modified distro containers, but I > > think running a patched pid-init is a reasonable tradeoff to ask users > > to make in order to get c/r. And there's nothing to keep the standard > > distro inits from growing c/r capability. > > It's not necessarily a dealbreaker, since presumably I can hack the > needed support into upstart, triggered by a boot option so it isn't > activated on a host. But especially given the lack of interest in > this thread so far, I don't see a point in pushing this, an API-incompatible > less-capable version of the linux-cr tree. The apparent lack of interest was discouraging, but I appreciate that you've been looking it over. > If it can gain traction > better than linux-cr, that'd be one thing. But given the amount of > review and testing the other tree has gotten How much traction do you think linux-cr has? It doesn't seem any closer to mainline than it was a year ago, and it barely has any users. I don't think posting this little proof-of-concept patch set is disrupting linux-cr's progress toward mainline. > - and I realize you're > able to piggy-back on much of that - and, again, the lack of responses > so far, I just don't see this as worth pushing for. Sure, the lack of response sucks, but it's not unexpected, and the code here is pretty rough (especially the stuff I wrote). What I hoped to highlight and discuss were the differences in system call interfaces and goals, and to gauge interest from the larger community. Certainly what I posted here isn't anywhere close to merge quality and I didn't intend it to be taken that way. I don't think it's hurting anything to explore an alternative approach with more modest goals (and, one hopes, less of a maintenance footprint on the rest of the kernel). > I'd really prefer that everyone was using the same tree, and sending > any and all patches which they need, no matter how ugly they fear > they are, upstream. To that end, I think it would be appropriate > for you or Dan to get write access to Oren's tree or to move to a > newly cloned copy of his tree to which one of you has acces. Oren and I disagree on some fundamental aspects of how kernel c/r should be implemented (hence this patch set), so I'm not sure how this would work. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
