>>> Process checkpointing needs to bite the bullet and >>> create its own API instead. >> >> This is bad approach as well. What we should do is come up with a sane >> API that makes sense without the checkpoint-restore project _when_ _possible_. > > Coming up with a sane API in general isn't easy. That's what we've put the linux-api@ in Cc for ;) [snip] > Compared to this, ptrace-attaching to the process > and then reading from /proc or issuing a new ptrace request > looks much cleaner. Sure it does! Also note, that it also looks much cleaner than the fancy /proc/pid/checkpoint thing you propose. > My opinion, of course. Thanks, Pavel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
