From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Serge E. Hallyn" Subject: Re: [RFC v14][PATCH 31/54] powerpc: checkpoint/restart implementation Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 10:49:35 -0500 Message-ID: <20090429154935.GA1938@us.ibm.com> References: <1240961064-13991-1-git-send-email-orenl@cs.columbia.edu> <1240961064-13991-32-git-send-email-orenl@cs.columbia.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: Nathan Lynch Cc: containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, Alexey Dobriyan , Dave Hansen List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Quoting Nathan Lynch (ntl-e+AXbWqSrlAAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org): > Which brings me to the subject of tree management... it's rather > difficult for interested parties to follow development of a tree that is > frequently rewritten. It would be much easier to base work on a linear > "append-only" branch. The guesswork involved in tracking down > regressions in C/R function would be reduced because bisection would > work. And we would have an accurate history of the changes made over > time. The cost would be that the checkpoint/restart work would not have > an easily-reviewable native form, but I think it would be possible to > generate comprehensible diffs for review since the majority of the code > is in self-contained files. It would make this set much easier for us to review (and bisect). Late last night I decided re-reviewing the patches just isn't going to work for me. I guess I'll just review the checkpoint/*.c files individually, and generate one big c/r diff for the rest of the kernel tree. -serge