<div dir="ltr">Thanks for the answers!<div><br></div><div>Regarding removing -R, I believe that, from the user's perspective, it would be nice to keep it as option. </div><div>Why couldn't we just have CRIU perform a normal checkpoint and then, when -R is passed, it does the restore as post-dump step? No need to change anything on the checkpoint process, right?</div>
<div><br></div><div>I might be missing something, but if the problem is only related to the network lock/unlock, I believe this would do.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Fred</div></div><div class="gmail_extra">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Cyrill Gorcunov <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gorcunov@gmail.com" target="_blank">gorcunov@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 08:48:29PM +0400, Andrey Wagin wrote:<br>
><br>
> $ criu dump --action-script post-dump.sh ....<br>
> $ [ $? -eq 32 ] && echo PASS || echo FAIL<br>
><br>
> ><br>
> > When you mentioned that -R doesn't work, is there other issues apart from<br>
> > the issue related to established connections unlocking on the source host?<br>
><br>
> Yes. I can't remember why we decided to not fix the -R option. Pavel<br>
> or Cyrill, do you know a reason?<br>
<br>
</div>Hmm, I must admit I don't remember either. Pavel?<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>