<div dir="ltr">Resent it with more verbose changelog. Thanks for the review! :)<div><br></div><div>Andrei</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-06-28 11:51 GMT+03:00 Cyrill Gorcunov <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gorcunov@gmail.com" target="_blank">gorcunov@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 11:30:21AM +0300, Andrei Tuicu wrote:<br>
> Hi, Cyrill,<br>
> I did not go that far... I looked at the other lines that handle files<br>
> under /proc and I didn't see anything special being done about those. The<br>
> only problem is that criu returns error code for the /proc folder itself,<br>
> due to what I think is a minor bug. As it is now, if a process does<br>
> fopen("/proc", "r"), criu will fail to dump it and I found that a little<br>
> odd since it has no problem with files/folders that are under /proc.<br>
> If I understand correctly what you are saying, then procfs would not be<br>
> mounted in /proc, but instead in some /path/to/proc, as seen by the<br>
> process, right? In that case then the code might need other patches to<br>
> handle that.<br>
<br>
</span>I meant the case where completely new file tree created (say inside container)<br>
and such processes lives in own /, /proc and etc.<br>
<br>
Actually after thinking more I think the patch is correct. Thank you!<br>
But please make more verbose changelog.<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>