Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] first callers of process_deny_checkpoint()

[Greg Kurz <gkurz@fr.ibm.com>]

On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 10:28 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 18:45 +0200, Greg Kurz wrote:
> > It's exactly what I meant before, the tracking facility would be awfully
> > complicated. It cannot be done that way.
> > But there's also something awkward with the flag thing : can you provide
> > right now an exhaustive list of all the places where you must raise it ?
> 
> Greg, that's just pure FUD.  We don't say that spinlocks are a bad thing
> because we can't come up with an exhaustive list of places where we need
> locking.
> 
> We'll do plenty of checks at checkpoint time.
> 
> We'll do plenty of checks at runtime.
> 
> Neither will work completely on its own, and neither will be exhaustive.
> The way this will work is just as Serge said: in true Linux style, we'll
> add more places users of process_deny_checkpoint() incrementally as we
> find them and as people complain.  We'll also be incrementally removing
> them as we add functionality.
> 
> -- Dave
> 

Well then I misunderstood the purpose your initial postings. Sorry. :)

-- 
Gregory Kurz                                     gkurz@fr.ibm.com
Software Engineer @ IBM/Meiosys                  http://www.ibm.com
Tel +33 (0)534 638 479                           Fax +33 (0)561 400 420

"Anarchy is about taking complete responsibility for yourself."
        Alan Moore.