[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1218726977.23641.6.camel@nimitz>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 08:16:17 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Cc: Oren Laadan <orenl@...columbia.edu>,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [Devel] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/4] checkpoint-restart:
general infrastructure
On Thu, 2008-08-14 at 12:09 +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
> E.g. consider we are saving a container image on ipv6 node and trying
> to restore from it on the one without the ipv6. In that case we *may*
> have some object of for example CKPT_IPV6_IFA type of CLPT_IPV6_SOCK_INFO
> and fail the restoration process when finding such in an input file. But
> what we should *not* do is to write any information about whether we had
> the CONFIG_IPV6 turned on on the dumping side and check for this on the
> restoring side.
The only problem I can see with this is that you lose efficiency,
especially when you have to build your checkpoint image with lots of
things that are config-specific.
The approach sounds like a good one in theory, but I'm a bit skeptical
that we could stick to it in practice, in a mainline kernel where there
are billions of config options. It is definitely something to strive
for, though. Good point!
-- Dave
--
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