[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [Ksummit-2010-discuss] checkpoint-restart: naked patch

    On 11/17/2010 05:17 PM, Matt Helsley wrote:
    > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 12:57:40PM +0100, Tejun Heo wrote:
    >> Hello, Oren.
    >> On 11/07/2010 10:59 PM, Oren Laadan wrote:


    >>> Or we could use linux-cr for that: do the c/r in the kernel,
    >>> keep the know-how in the kernel, expose (and commit to) a
    >>> per-kernel-version ABI (not vow to keep countless new individual
    > Oren, that statement might be read to imply that it's based on
    > something as useless as kernel version numbers. Arnd has pointed out in the
    > past how unsuitable that is and I tend to agree. There are at least two
    > possible things we can relate it to: the SHA of the compiled kernel tree
    > (which doesn't quite work because it assumes everybody uses git trees :( ),
    > or perhaps the SHA/hash of the cpp-processed checkpoint_hdr.h. We could
    > also stuff that header into the kernel (much like kconfigs are output from
    > /proc) for programs that want the kernel to describe the ABI to them.

    BTW, it's the same for userspace c/r: for the same set of features,
    the format (ABI) remains unchanged. Adding features breaks this and
    a new version is necessary, and conversion from old to new will be

    Moreover, supporting a new feature in userspace means adding the
    proper API/ABI in the kernel, including refactoring etc, which is
    even harder than adding the support for it in linux-cr.


     \ /
      Last update: 2010-11-18 21:29    [W:0.022 / U:3.188 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site