From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Smith Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] c/r: Add AF_UNIX support (v5) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 09:55:46 -0700 Message-ID: <8763e3qfl9.fsf@caffeine.danplanet.com> References: <1246994776-1882-1-git-send-email-danms@us.ibm.com> <1246994776-1882-2-git-send-email-danms@us.ibm.com> <4A543D82.5080408@cs.columbia.edu> <87ljmzqjvl.fsf@caffeine.danplanet.com> <4A54CCDB.1090602@cs.columbia.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: containers-qjLDD68F18O7TbgM5vRIOg@public.gmane.org, netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Alexey Dobriyan To: Oren Laadan Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4A54CCDB.1090602-eQaUEPhvms7ENvBUuze7eA@public.gmane.org> (Oren Laadan's message of "Wed\, 08 Jul 2009 12\:44\:11 -0400") 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 List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org OL> It will mostly fix the buffer limits, but not entirely: if the OL> original socket first raised the limits above defualt, then sent OL> data (not read by peer), then you'll still need to adjust the OL> limit before restoring the buffers. If we cap the buffers in the checkpoint image to the current system limit (sysctl) and then set the per-socket buffer limit (after reading them in) to the value in the checkpoint image then we get the desired result, right? OL> I can't predict the future, but it's been there forever... Yeah, after I sent that I remembered that the magic 108 is in the sockaddr_un structure which is a userspace API and therefore not likely to change. OL> But the point is that I would interpret ENOSPC as "storage/space OL> is exhausted", while here the error is that this value is simply OL> invalid for the particular kernel on which the restart occurs. Yep, fair enough. OL> In the original system, once the file becomes unreachable it OL> cannot be made reachable again by simple (re)mounting, IOW it can OL> no longer be connected-to. Ah, I thought you meant "was reachable on the source system and not reachable on the target system". I'm with you now :) -- Dan Smith IBM Linux Technology Center email: danms-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org