[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 16:15:50 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>
Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge.hallyn@...ntu.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 14:55:11 -0700 Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com> wrote:
> However I think we need some review before we continue modifying it. We
> had a minimal patch set which evolved into the current maximal set. It
> never really got the reviews outside our little group that it needed.
> Now we're back with a new minimal patch set. You're asking us to do the same
> thing and expect different results -- stack more patches on top and expect to
> get it reviewed. OK, but what reason do we have to believe this time will be
> any different?
None whatsoever. It could be that the two sets "a sufficiently useful
c/r implementation" and "a c/r implementation which will be acceptable"
have no intersection. IOW, there is no solution.
But I haven't looked at c/r patches in quite some time, hence the
hand-waving and useless platitudes.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists