From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Serge E. Hallyn" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Deny external checkpoint unless frozen Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:31:16 -0600 Message-ID: <20090224183116.GA21891@us.ibm.com> References: <20090221201317.GB13532@us.ibm.com> <20090223230438.GA2590@us.ibm.com> <1235435947.26788.216.camel@nimitz> <20090224010945.GA4797@us.ibm.com> <1235438283.26788.219.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: <1235438283.26788.219.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 , Sukadev Bhattiprolu , "David C. Hansen" List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Quoting Dave Hansen (dave-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org): > On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 19:09 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > > > > > Agreed. I personally would like to just get rid of support > > > > for t==current, but don't expect to get anywhere with that > > > > argument :) > > > > > > Along the lines of what Ingo has been asking for, do we need to expose > > > this logic in some way? Do we need a /proc/$$/checkpointable file which > > > says, "I'm not checkpointable because I'm not frozen"? > > > > I really like that. > > > > > Or, is this just a core part of the API: you have to freeze before > > > checkpointing? As such, we'll never move to a place where we're not > > > frozen when checkpointing, so we might as well not even track or expose > > > it. > > > > the only way that would make sense is if sys_checkpoint went ahead > > and frozen them all, right? > > Yeah, I agree with that. > > Does this mean Suka has to do the patch? ;) Heh. Well the patch is mainly on top of your patchset which defines the string holding reasons for uncheckpointability, right? I assume you've modified that since then (too bad we're on a patch model at the moment) so seems easiest for you to toss it on top of your set. Or you can send your latest version and I (or Suka) can write the /proc/$$/checkpointable file. -serge