From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752617AbYDXH0a (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Apr 2008 03:26:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751197AbYDXH0W (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Apr 2008 03:26:22 -0400 Received: from mailhub.sw.ru ([195.214.232.25]:37997 "EHLO relay.sw.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751131AbYDXH0W (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Apr 2008 03:26:22 -0400 Message-ID: <48103002.5090806@parallels.com> Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:00:18 +0400 From: Kirill Korotaev Organization: Parallels User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071022) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hansen CC: containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Nadia.Derbey@bull.net, Andrew Morton , nick@nick-andrew.net, Alexey Dobriyan Subject: Re: Checkpoint/restart (was Re: [PATCH 0/4] - v2 - Object creation with a specified id) References: <20080418054459.891481000@bull.net> <20080422193612.GA15835@martell.zuzino.mipt.ru> <1208890580.17117.14.camel@nimitz.home.sr71.net> <20080422210130.GA15937@martell.zuzino.mipt.ru> <1208904967.17117.51.camel@nimitz.home.sr71.net> <480ED9D5.1010906@parallels.com> <1208964798.17117.72.camel@nimitz.home.sr71.net> In-Reply-To: <1208964798.17117.72.camel@nimitz.home.sr71.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1251 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Yeah... we talked with Andrew yesterday. He mostly agrees with a black box. He also said an interesting idea, that if you need compatibility between the kernels (like we for example, support for migration from 2.6.9 to 2.6.18 in OpenVZ) you can do image conversion in user-space... Though I think we will prefer simply to have a compatibility patch for specific kernel versions in our kernel tree (not in mainstream). Definitely, other ideas/opinions are welcome. Kirill Dave Hansen wrote: > On Wed, 2008-04-23 at 10:40 +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote: >> Having all this functionality in a signle syscall we specifically CLAIM a black box, >> and that no one can use this interfaces for something different from checkpoint/restore. >> >> So I think we have to know what other maintainers think before we can go. > > I completely agree. > > Have you asked any particular maintainers what they think? > > -- Dave > >