From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Serge E. Hallyn" Subject: Re: [BIG RFC] Filesystem-based checkpoint Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 14:50:56 -0500 Message-ID: <20081030195056.GA20139@us.ibm.com> References: <1225219047.12673.182.camel@nimitz> <4909FAA8.5000107@cs.columbia.edu> <20081030192817.GA16340@us.ibm.com> <1225395557.12673.351.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: <1225395557.12673.351.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): > On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 14:28 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > Now maybe eventually he's going to propose something more esotaric where > > doing the mount() actually starts the checkpoint (that's where I figured > > he'd be heading), but I think it would still be one action on the part > > of userspace telling the kernel "do a checkpoint". > > > > (Or am I wrong on that, Dave?) > > I don't really care how it is initiated. If a checkpoint was initiated > by sys_mount() with special mount options, I don't see a real > distinction between that and sys_checkpoint(). Or, a special ioctl() on > a special device file for that matter. How we initiate it isn't > important to me. Ok, that's what I though. -serge