linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 05/10] Core checkpoint/restart support code

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 4 Apr 2011 12:42:22 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com>
Cc:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	Nathan Lynch <ntl@...ox.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] Core checkpoint/restart support code

On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 13:51:20 -0500 "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com> wrote:

> Quoting Andrew Morton (akpm@...ux-foundation.org):
> > On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 11:27:53 -0500 "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Andrew (Cc:d), did you see this thread go by, and it did it look
> > > in any way more palatable to you?  Have you had any thoughts on
> > > checkpoint/restart in the last few months?  Or did that horse quietly
> > > die over winter?
> > 
> > argh, it was the victim of LIFO.
> > 
> > All I can say at this stage is that I'll be interested next time it
> > comes past, sorry.
> 
> Thanks, that's good to know.
> 
> As you know, we started with a minimal patchset, then grew it over time
> to answer the "but how will you (xyz) without uglifying the kernel".
> Would you recommend we go back to keeping a separate minimal patchset,
> or that we develop on the current, pretty feature-full version?  I'm not
> convinced believe there will be bandwidth to keep two trees and do both
> justice.

The minimal patchset is too minimal for Oren's use and the maximal
patchset seems to have run aground on general kernel sentiment.  So I
guess you either take the minimal patchset and make it less minimal or
take the maximal patchset and make it less maximal, ending up with the
same thing.  How's that for hand-waving useless obviousnesses :)

One obvious approach is to merge the minimal patchset then, over time,
sneak more stuff into it so we end up with the maximal patchset which
people didn't like.  Don't do that :)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/