Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] Track in-kernel when we expectcheckpoint/restart to work

[Serge E. Hallyn]

Quoting Greg Kurz (gkurz@xxxxxxxxxx):
> On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 11:18 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
> > Greg Kurz wrote:
> > 
> > > This flag is weak... testing it gives absolutly no hint whether the
> > > checkpoint may succeed or not. As it is designed now, a user can only be
> > > aware that checkpoint is *forever* denied. I agree that it's only useful
> > > as a "flexible CR todo list".
> > 
> > I don't think it's true that it gives "absolutly no hint".
> > 
> > If the flag is not set, then checkpoint will succeed, right?  Whereas if 
> 
> Wrong. Unless you test_and_checkpoint atomically, the flag doesn't help.

Atomically wrt what?  Presumably you test and checkpoint while the
container is frozen...

> > the flag is set, then it's an indication that checkpoint could fail (but 
> > may still succeed if whatever condition caused the flag to be set is no 
> > longer true).
> > 
> > Chris
> > 
> -- 
> Gregory Kurz                                     gkurz@xxxxxxxxxx
> Software Engineer @ IBM/Meiosys                  http://www.ibm.com
> Tel +33 (0)534 638 479                           Fax +33 (0)561 400 420
> 
> "Anarchy is about taking complete responsibility for yourself."
>         Alan Moore.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Containers mailing list
> Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
--
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/