From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Smith Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] c/r: add checkpoint/restore methods to struct proto_ops Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:21:49 -0700 Message-ID: <874os65e6q.fsf@caffeine.danplanet.com> References: <1250539931-12951-1-git-send-email-orenl@librato.com> <1250539931-12951-3-git-send-email-orenl@librato.com> <87r5va5g1g.fsf@caffeine.danplanet.com> <4A89C681.7030307@librato.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: 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-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org OL> I figured that if we called a sock_create() for a type that isn't OL> supported by checkpoint/restart, we will catch it down the code by OL> testing sock->ops->restore. That way, I don't need to "teach" OL> sock_file_restore() about socket types and protocols. Okay, yeah I suppose so. In that case, why even have the check? certainly sock_create() checks that somewhere down the line, right? OL> Do you see any reason why it should work ? The only difference OL> (for afunix) between dgram and seqpacket is the requirement that OL> the socket be connected - see unix_seqpacket_sendmsg(). Not for AF_UNIX, no. I just said I hadn't tested it :) -- Dan Smith IBM Linux Technology Center email: danms-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org