From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Serge E. Hallyn" Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] checkpoint: handle saved_sigmask Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 10:56:45 -0600 Message-ID: <20100218165645.GA30238@hallyn.com> References: <20100202180718.GA28249@us.ibm.com> <20100218160846.GA9141@us.ibm.com> <4B7D6FBE.5010805@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: <4B7D6FBE.5010805-eQaUEPhvms7ENvBUuze7eA@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: Linux Containers List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Quoting Oren Laadan (orenl-eQaUEPhvms7ENvBUuze7eA@public.gmane.org): > > > Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > I thought there had been followup discussion on this, but I don't > > see it in my mbox. (maybe it was on irc?) > > The patch seems correct. > > The only comment is that naming the hook "task_restore_sigmask" > confused me to think it is part of restart logic, which it isn't. > > How about "task_saved_sigmask" instead ? > > > Did we decide to punt on this until v20? > > Probably better to add to v19 while we're at it. I'll do it > right away unless you object to the name change. no objections, thanks -serge