From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matt Mackall Subject: Re: [RFC v13][PATCH 00/14] Kernel based checkpoint/restart Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 17:05:24 -0600 Message-ID: <1234479924.3152.13.camel@calx> References: <1233076092-8660-1-git-send-email-orenl@cs.columbia.edu> <1234285547.30155.6.camel@nimitz> <20090211141434.dfa1d079.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1234462282.30155.171.camel@nimitz> <1234467035.3243.538.camel@calx> <1234479457.30155.214.camel@nimitz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1234479457.30155.214.camel@nimitz> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Dave Hansen Cc: Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , orenl@cs.columbia.edu, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, hpa@zytor.com, Thomas Gleixner , Cedric Le Goater , Pavel Emelyanov , Alexey Dobriyan List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 14:57 -0800, Dave Hansen wrote: > > Also, what happens if I checkpoint a process in 2.6.30 and restore it in > > 2.6.31 which has an expanded idea of what should be restored? Do your > > file formats handle this sort of forward compatibility or am I > > restricted to one kernel? > > In general, you're restricted to one kernel. But, people have mentioned > that, if the formats change, we should be able to write in-userspace > converters for the checkpoint files. I mentioned this because it seems like a key use case is upgrading kernels out from under long-lived applications. -- http://selenic.com : development and support for Mercurial and Linux -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org