From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Oren Laadan <orenl-RdfvBDnrOixBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] Send checkpoint and restart debug info to a log	file
	(v2)
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:48:26 -0400
Message-ID: <4AE1FA7A.5030702@librato.com>
References: <20091021210507.GA2098@us.ibm.com> <4ADF853F.6080807@librato.com>
	<20091021224922.GA5827@us.ibm.com> <4ADF95D0.8060806@librato.com>
	<20091022005157.GA11608@us.ibm.com>
	<20091022060400.GE7757@count0.beaverton.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <20091022060400.GE7757-52DBMbEzqgQ/wnmkkaCWp/UQ3DHhIser@public.gmane.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers>,
	<mailto:containers-request-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/containers>
List-Post: <mailto:containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org>
List-Help: <mailto:containers-request-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers>,
	<mailto:containers-request-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org
Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org
To: Matt Helsley <matthltc-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Linux Containers <containers-qjLDD68F18O7TbgM5vRIOg@public.gmane.org>
List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org



Matt Helsley wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 07:51:57PM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>> Quoting Oren Laadan (orenl-RdfvBDnrOixBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org):
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>>> More practically, requiring userspace to pass over a flag
>>>> consisting of CKPT_DBG_MEM|CKPT_DBG|FILE|CKPT_DBG|TASK, and
>>>> handle corresponding usage flags, is not nice.
>>> I agree with you on about this. Maybe we want a better
>>> interface ?
>>>
>>> Which brings me to this random thought: maybe we want to
>>> make the fourth argument of sys_{checkpoint,restart} a
>>> structure, to make it easier to extend it in the future
>>> without having to go throw a clone3-like hell...
> 
> Adding new kernel interfaces is supposed to be somewhat hellish.
> 
>>> Specifically, this structure could now be:
>>>
>>> struct ckpt_args {
>>> 	int version;
>>> 	int logfd;
>>> 	int logmask;
>>> };
>>>
>>> (or use union checkpoint {} and union restart {} to tell
>>> between checkpoint- and restart-related args.
>> Well I don't like passing structs to the kernel actually (and
> 
> Let's not do this. I agree that passing structs, when unnecessary,
> is gross. Especially if it gets used to extend the arguments
> passed via the syscall interface (new flag values I don't mind).

Ok, we already allow future extension by being strict about
which flags are taken or not.

Then what do we do with logmask ?   I prefer it to be a per-syscall
value as opposed to a system-wise setting.

Oren.