From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Hansen Subject: Re: [RFC v7][PATCH 2/9] General infrastructure for checkpoint restart Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:09:33 -0700 Message-ID: <1225145373.12673.125.camel@nimitz> References: <1224481237-4892-1-git-send-email-orenl@cs.columbia.edu> <1224481237-4892-3-git-send-email-orenl@cs.columbia.edu> <20081021124130.a002e838.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20081021202410.GA10423@us.ibm.com> <48FE82DF.6030005@cs.columbia.edu> <20081022152804.GA23821@us.ibm.com> <48FF4EB2.5060206@cs.columbia.edu> <87tzayh27r.wl%peter@chubb.wattle.id.au> <49059FED.4030202@cs.columbia.edu> <1225125752.12673.79.camel@nimitz> <4905F648.4030402@cs.columbia.edu> <1225140705.5115.40.camel@enoch> <490637D8.4080404@cs.columbia.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <490637D8.4080404-eQaUEPhvms7ENvBUuze7eA@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Oren Laadan Cc: Matt Helsley , Andrew Morton , linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, tglx-hfZtesqFncYOwBW4kG4KsQ@public.gmane.org, viro-RmSDqhL/yNMiFSDQTTA3OLVCufUGDwFn@public.gmane.org, hpa-YMNOUZJC4hwAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, mingo-X9Un+BFzKDI@public.gmane.org, torvalds-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org, Peter Chubb List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 17:51 -0400, Oren Laadan wrote: > > Instead, how about a flag to sys_checkpoint() -- DO_RISKY_CHECKPOINT -- > > which checkpoints despite !may_checkpoint? > > I also agree with Matt - so we have a quorum :) > > so just to clarify: sys_checkpoint() is to fail (with what error ?) if the > deny-checkpoint test fails. > > however, if the user is risky, she can specify CR_CHECKPOINT_RISKY to force > an attempt to checkpoint as is. This sounds like an awful lot of policy to determine *inside* the kernel. Everybody is going to have a different definition of risky, so this scheme will work for approximately 5 minutes until it gets patched. :) Is it possible to enhance our interface such that users might have some kind of choice on these matters? -- Dave -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html