| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 15:44:29 -0700 From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> To: Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com> Cc: rjw@...k.pl, menage@...gle.com, lizf@...fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Container Freezer v6: Reuse Suspend Freezer On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:53:23 -0700 Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com> wrote: > This patch series introduces a cgroup subsystem that utilizes the swsusp > freezer to freeze a group of tasks. It's immediately useful for batch job > management scripts. It should also be useful in the future for implementing > container checkpoint/restart. I don't think that this provides anything like sufficient detail to justify merging a whole bunch of stuff into Linux. What does "It's immediately useful for batch job management scripts." mean? How is it useful? Examples? Why would an operator want this feature, and how would it be used? _much_ more information is needed! Once we've actually found out what this work is useful for, we can move onto identification of and discussion of alternatives. One would be "why not use plain old SIGSTOP?" Another alternative is, of course "that's not useful enough to justify merging the code". But we don't know yet, coz you didn't tell us. -- 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