[Devel] Re: [RFC v2][PATCH 01/10] Infrastructure for work postponed to the end of checkpoint/restart

[Serge E. Hallyn]

Quoting Oren Laadan (orenl at cs.columbia.edu):
> --- a/checkpoint/Makefile
> +++ b/checkpoint/Makefile
> @@ -2,8 +2,8 @@
>  # Makefile for linux checkpoint/restart.
>  #
> 
> -obj-$(CONFIG_CHECKPOINT) += sys.o objhash.o \
> +obj-$(CONFIG_CHECKPOINT) += sys.o objhash.o deferqueue.o \
>  		checkpoint.o restart.o \
>  		ckpt_task.o rstr_task.o \
>  		ckpt_mem.o rstr_mem.o \
> -		ckpt_file.o rstr_file.o
> +		ckpt_file.o rstr_file.o \

?

> +int cr_deferqueue_add(struct cr_ctx *ctx, cr_deferqueue_func_t function,
> +		     unsigned int flags, void *data, int size)
> +{
> +	struct cr_deferqueue *wq;
> +
> +	wq = kmalloc(sizeof(wq) + size, GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!wq)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +	wq->function = function;
> +	wq->flags = flags;
> +	memcpy(wq->data, data, size);
> +
> +	cr_debug("adding work %p function %p\n", wq, wq->function);
> +	list_add_tail(&ctx->deferqueue, &wq->list);
> +	return 0;
> +}

Shouldn't the deferqueue be protected by a spinlock here?

-serge
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers