From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oren Laadan Subject: Re: [BIG RFC] Filesystem-based checkpoint Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:25:36 -0400 Message-ID: <4909E000.9070201@cs.columbia.edu> References: <1225219047.12673.182.camel@nimitz> <20081028205654.GA17487@us.ibm.com> <1225228229.12673.195.camel@nimitz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1225228229.12673.195.camel@nimitz> 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 List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Dave Hansen wrote: > On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 15:56 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: >> If you like I can take a shot at whipping up the new mini-fs, though >> I think you're having fun :) > > There are a couple of concepts that just get easier once you start > thinking of this as an entire fs too. For instance, cr_ctx just becomes > crfs_sb. For things like dumping in parallel, we get locking and > lifetime rules for free from the vfs. Well, 'cr_ctx' is per-checkpoint, while crfs_sb will single for the entire system. So you'll need to add something per checkpoint anyway. What other concepts get easier ? Oren.