From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Serge E. Hallyn" Subject: Re: [BIG RFC] Filesystem-based checkpoint Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 15:56:54 -0500 Message-ID: <20081028205654.GA17487@us.ibm.com> References: <1225219047.12673.182.camel@nimitz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1225219047.12673.182.camel@nimitz> 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: Dave Hansen Cc: containers List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Quoting Dave Hansen (dave-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org): > I hate the syscall. It's a very un-Linux-y way of doing things. There, Not really the syscall, but the writing to the file from the kernel. Any time I see set_fs(KERNEL_DS) i get flashbacks to getting yelled at in the 90s :) > I said it. Here's an alternative. It still uses the syscall to > initiate things, but it uses debugfs to transport the data instead. > This is just a concept demonstration. It doesn't actually work, and I > wouldn't be using debugfs in practice. It's neat how few lines this took, but I would prefer using a tiny custom fs rather than use debugfs for dump and configfs for restore. If you like I can take a shot at whipping up the new mini-fs, though I think you're having fun :) -serge