[Devel] Re: [PATCH 02/10] Make checkpoint/restart functionality modular
Dave Hansen
dave at linux.vnet.ibm.com
Mon Oct 20 09:51:59 PDT 2008
On Sat, 2008-10-18 at 03:11 +0400, Andrey Mirkin wrote:
> +struct cpt_operations
> +{
> + struct module * owner;
> + int (*checkpoint)(pid_t pid, int fd, unsigned long flags);
> + int (*restart)(int ctid, int fd, unsigned long flags);
> +};
I think this is pretty useless obfuscation. We're not going to have
pluggable checkpoint/restart implementations, are we? So, why bother
putting it in a module?
I can understand that it's easier to develop your code when it's in a
module and you don't have to reboot the machine to load a new kernel
each time. But, that's an individual developer thing, and doesn't
belong in an upstream submission.
I know people have given you a hard time for this in the past. Why is
it still here?
-- Dave
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
More information about the Devel
mailing list