Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] first callers of process_deny_checkpoint()

[Greg Kurz]

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.

Greg.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/