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

["Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com>]

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