From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Serge E. Hallyn" Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] c/r: define s390-specific checkpoint-restart code (v5) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:49:27 -0600 Message-ID: <20090224214927.GA29993@us.ibm.com> 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> <1235510471.26788.317.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: <1235510471.26788.317.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-qjLDD68F18O7TbgM5vRIOg@public.gmane.org, Dan Smith List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Quoting Dave Hansen (dave-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.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 Oh I think that was a bogus guess on my part anyway. Like I say I don't want to encourage churn for the sake of churn at this point, but you've got me thinking that moving parent into the details and giving it a more useful name could *really* dilute some of the mystery in these patches. It's sounding good to me... -serge