[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1219270314.8960.74.camel@nimitz>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:11:54 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Oren Laadan <orenl@...columbia.edu>
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...ibm.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Chubb <peterc@...ato.unsw.edu.au>
Subject: Re: checkpoint/restart ABI
On Wed, 2008-08-20 at 17:54 -0400, Oren Laadan wrote:
> > Me, personally, I think I'd probably "re-link" the thing, mark it as
> > such, ship it across like a normal file, then unlink it after the
> > restore. I don't know what we'd choose when actually implementing
> it.
>
> Re-linking works well when the file system supports that - some do not
> allow this, in which case you need to silently rename instead of really
> un-linking (even with NFS), or copy the entire contents.
Yeah, it will certainly be fs-dependent.
This might be a good application for splice.
open("/tmp/linked-newfile", O_RDONLY, perms);
splice(unlinked_fd, NULL, new_fd, NULL, MAX_INT, SPLICE_F_MOVE);
I'm not sure if it can re-use the blocks on the fs for this, but it
probably doesn't matter.
-- 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