[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1223885897.4404.5.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:18:17 +0200
From: Greg Kurz <gkurz@...ibm.com>
To: Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>
Cc: Oren Laadan <orenl@...columbia.edu>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@...ibm.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, arnd@...db.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] Track in-kernel when we expect
checkpoint/restart to work
On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 11:18 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
> Greg Kurz wrote:
>
> > This flag is weak... testing it gives absolutly no hint whether the
> > checkpoint may succeed or not. As it is designed now, a user can only be
> > aware that checkpoint is *forever* denied. I agree that it's only useful
> > as a "flexible CR todo list".
>
> I don't think it's true that it gives "absolutly no hint".
>
> If the flag is not set, then checkpoint will succeed, right? Whereas if
Wrong. Unless you test_and_checkpoint atomically, the flag doesn't help.
> the flag is set, then it's an indication that checkpoint could fail (but
> may still succeed if whatever condition caused the flag to be set is no
> longer true).
>
> Chris
>
--
Gregory Kurz gkurz@...ibm.com
Software Engineer @ IBM/Meiosys http://www.ibm.com
Tel +33 (0)534 638 479 Fax +33 (0)561 400 420
"Anarchy is about taking complete responsibility for yourself."
Alan Moore.
--
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