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

[Serge E. Hallyn]

Quoting Dave Hansen (dave at linux.vnet.ibm.com):
> 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? ;)

Heh.

Well the patch is mainly on top of your patchset which defines
the string holding reasons for uncheckpointability, right?  I
assume you've modified that since then (too bad we're on a
patch model at the moment) so seems easiest for you to toss it
on top of your set.

Or you can send your latest version and I (or Suka) can write
the /proc/$$/checkpointable file.

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