From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Hansen Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] /proc/pid/checkpointable Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 09:24:55 -0700 Message-ID: <1237393495.8286.161.camel@nimitz> References: <20090317062754.GA2377@us.ibm.com> <20090317063940.GF2377@us.ibm.com> <49C0B6FF.5030104@cs.columbia.edu> <20090318135953.GE22636@us.ibm.com> <49C11E61.4010505@cs.columbia.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <49C11E61.4010505-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: Containers , Sukadev Bhattiprolu List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2009-03-18 at 12:16 -0400, Oren Laadan wrote: > My suggestions works for this two: we add a flag CR_CTX_DRYRUN; a task > can ask to checkpoint itself, or another task, with CR_CTX_DRYRUN and > the checkpoint code runs without actual effect. (If we don't want to > expose the actual flag to userspace, then we simply use it in an > implementation of a /proc/PID/checkpointable operation). This mostly falls short answering the question "Where/when did I go wrong?" Personally, I think that is critical for getting good bug reports out of normal Joes that might not really be interested in c/r development itself. It is like lockdep. The guys/gals posting those reports really don't know about kernel locking, but they are able to improve it anyway. -- Dave