From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu Subject: Re: Review: Can we move init_restart_ctx() up ? Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 18:48:58 -0700 Message-ID: <20091003014858.GA20762@us.ibm.com> References: <20091002051456.GA6684@us.ibm.com> <4AC645D2.7030409@librato.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4AC645D2.7030409-RdfvBDnrOixBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org> 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: Oren Laadan Cc: Containers List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Oren Laadan [orenl-RdfvBDnrOixBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org] wrote: | | | Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote: | > | > Would it be easier/cleaner if we initialized the restart ctx soon after | > allocating it ? Looks like we already have the information we need at that | > point. | > | > That way, do_restart() won't need the 'pid' parameter and we anyway use | > the 'if(ctx)' check to test for the coordinator. | | I put the {checkpoint,restart}-related work in {checkpoint,restart}.c, | and leave sys.c "neutral". | | I also like the symmetry between do_checkpoint() and do_restart() :p | | > BTW, can we move the '->active_pid = -1' in init_restart_ctx() to | > ckpt_ctx_alloc() itself ? | | @active_pid is specific to restart, that's why I initialize it there. Ok. Spreading out the initialization code over different functions is a bit confusing. Maybe we could call init_checkpoint_ctx() or init_restart_ctx() from ckpt_ctx_alloc() (depending on the kflags parameter) - and keep the symmetry/nuetrality, But not a big deal. Thanks, Sukadev