[Devel] Re: [PATCH] Deny external checkpoint unless frozen

[Dave Hansen]

On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 19:09 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> 
> > > Agreed.  I personally would like to just get rid of support
> > > for t==current, but don't expect to get anywhere with that
> > > argument :)
> > 
> > Along the lines of what Ingo has been asking for, do we need to expose
> > this logic in some way?  Do we need a /proc/$$/checkpointable file which
> > says, "I'm not checkpointable because I'm not frozen"?
> 
> I really like that.
> 
> > Or, is this just a core part of the API: you have to freeze before
> > checkpointing?  As such, we'll never move to a place where we're not
> > frozen when checkpointing, so we might as well not even track or expose
> > it.  
> 
> the only way that would make sense is if sys_checkpoint went ahead
> and frozen them all, right?

Yeah, I agree with that.

Does this mean Suka has to do the patch? ;)

-- Dave

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