From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Hansen Subject: Re: [BIG RFC] Filesystem-based checkpoint Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:39:17 -0700 Message-ID: <1225395557.12673.351.camel@nimitz> References: <1225219047.12673.182.camel@nimitz> <4909FAA8.5000107@cs.columbia.edu> <20081030192817.GA16340@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20081030192817.GA16340-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@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: "Serge E. Hallyn" Cc: containers List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 14:28 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Now maybe eventually he's going to propose something more esotaric where > doing the mount() actually starts the checkpoint (that's where I figured > he'd be heading), but I think it would still be one action on the part > of userspace telling the kernel "do a checkpoint". > > (Or am I wrong on that, Dave?) I don't really care how it is initiated. If a checkpoint was initiated by sys_mount() with special mount options, I don't see a real distinction between that and sys_checkpoint(). Or, a special ioctl() on a special device file for that matter. How we initiate it isn't important to me. -- Dave