lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Oct]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] first callers of process_deny_checkpoint()
    Quoting Cedric Le Goater (clg@fr.ibm.com):
    > > diff -puN ipc/mqueue.c~no-checkpointing-for-sockets ipc/mqueue.c
    > > --- linux-2.6.git/ipc/mqueue.c~no-checkpointing-for-sockets 2008-10-09 11:56:58.000000000 -0700
    > > +++ linux-2.6.git-dave/ipc/mqueue.c 2008-10-09 11:56:58.000000000 -0700
    > > @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
    > > */
    > >
    > > #include <linux/capability.h>
    > > +#include <linux/checkpoint.h>
    > > #include <linux/init.h>
    > > #include <linux/pagemap.h>
    > > #include <linux/file.h>
    > > @@ -655,6 +656,8 @@ asmlinkage long sys_mq_open(const char _
    > > char *name;
    > > int fd, error;
    > >
    > > + process_deny_checkpointing(current);
    > > +
    >
    > mqueue being a file system, i would put the checks in the inode_operations.
    >
    > Also, you can't always deny ! I would expect some allow in sys_mq_unlink().

    Remember a part of Ingo's motivation is to push c/r developers to
    address the lacking features that users use most, earlier. So the
    warnings and subsequent email complaints are what we're after. Hence a
    single 'checkpointable or not' flag.

    Given the single flag, how do you know at sys_mq_unlink() whether the
    process also has an opensocket?

    Rather than make this tracking facility more complicated and intrusive,
    if people complain that they couldn't checkpoint bc of a warning about
    aio, then we implement aio c/r! We don't just try and reduce the amount
    of time that you can't checkpoint bc of lack of aio c/r support :)

    -serge


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-10-10 16:07    [W:0.022 / U:0.596 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site