[Devel] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] Track in-kernel when we expect checkpoint/restart to work
Greg Kurz
gkurz at fr.ibm.com
Mon Oct 13 01:18:17 PDT 2008
On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 11:18 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
> Greg Kurz wrote:
>
> > This flag is weak... testing it gives absolutly no hint whether the
> > checkpoint may succeed or not. As it is designed now, a user can only be
> > aware that checkpoint is *forever* denied. I agree that it's only useful
> > as a "flexible CR todo list".
>
> I don't think it's true that it gives "absolutly no hint".
>
> If the flag is not set, then checkpoint will succeed, right? Whereas if
Wrong. Unless you test_and_checkpoint atomically, the flag doesn't help.
> the flag is set, then it's an indication that checkpoint could fail (but
> may still succeed if whatever condition caused the flag to be set is no
> longer true).
>
> Chris
>
--
Gregory Kurz gkurz at fr.ibm.com
Software Engineer @ IBM/Meiosys http://www.ibm.com
Tel +33 (0)534 638 479 Fax +33 (0)561 400 420
"Anarchy is about taking complete responsibility for yourself."
Alan Moore.
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
More information about the Devel
mailing list