From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Hansen Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] c/r: define s390-specific checkpoint-restart code (v5) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:21:11 -0800 Message-ID: <1235510471.26788.317.camel@nimitz> References: <1235500639-9597-1-git-send-email-danms@us.ibm.com> <1235500639-9597-3-git-send-email-danms@us.ibm.com> <20090224193737.GB24007@us.ibm.com> <1235504805.26788.298.camel@nimitz> <20090224200430.GA26259@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090224200430.GA26259-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: "Serge E. Hallyn" Cc: containers-qjLDD68F18O7TbgM5vRIOg@public.gmane.org, Dan Smith List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 14:04 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > OTOH I'm not eager to make such a change right now only to find > months later that there was a good reason to keep it in the hdr > after all :) The thing that bothers me about all of these things is that we can't truly evaluate them on their merits because we can't see how they are expected to be used in the future. Surely there are multiple ways we can implement details of the incremental checkpoint. -- Dave