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 Greg Kurz (gkurz@fr.ibm.com):
> On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 09:04 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > 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
>
> Serge,
>
> It's exactly what I meant before, the tracking facility would be awfully
> complicated. It cannot be done that way.
> But there's also something awkward with the flag thing : can you provide
> right now an exhaustive list of all the places where you must raise it ?
>
> I'd rather do some heavy checking at checkpoint time.

Noone is saying that we are not going to do that.

-serge


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-10-10 19:17    [W:0.068 / U:0.744 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site