From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] create fs flag to mark c/r supported fs's Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 14:00:09 -0500 Message-ID: <20090219190009.GC28490@infradead.org> References: <20090219182007.B4B47C1F@kernel> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090219182007.B4B47C1F@kernel> 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: Dave Hansen Cc: containers , "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Ingo Molnar , Alexey Dobriyan List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:20:07AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote: > > There are plenty of filesystems that are not supported for > c/r at this point. Think of things like hugetlbfs which > are externally visible or pipefs which are kernel-internal. > > This provides a quick way to make the "normal" filesystems > which are currently supported. This is also safe if any > new code gets added. We assume that a fs is non-supported > unless someone takes explicit action to the contrary. > > I bet there are some more filesystems that are OK, but > these probably cover 99% of the users for now. Given that a normal fs should be checkpointable you should make those exposing internal state, not the other way around.