[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081020165117.GA25885@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 11:51:17 -0500
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
To: Oren Laadan <orenl@...columbia.edu>
Cc: Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@...ibm.com>, Louis.Rilling@...labs.com,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andrey Mirkin <major@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] OpenVZ kernel based checkpointing/restart
Quoting Oren Laadan (orenl@...columbia.edu):
> This is a misconception: my patches are not "internal checkpoint". My
> patches are basically "external checkpoint" by design, which *also*
> accommodates self-checkpointing (aka internal). The same holds for the
> restart. The implementation is demonstrated with "self-checkpoint" to
> avoid complicating things at this early stage of proof-of-concept.
>
> For multiple processes all that is needed is a container and a loop
> on the checkpoint side, and a method to recreate processes on the
> restart side. Andrew suggests to do it in kernel space, I still have
> doubts.
Yes I still prefer in-kernel. Can you elaborate on advantages of doing
more work in userspace?
> While I held out the multi-process part of the patch so far because I
Yup, and i appreciate your restraint until now :) It made your patchset
much easier to review.
> was explicitly asked to do it, it seems like this would be a good time
> to push it out and get feedback.
Can you send that out as a patch(set) on top of your v7? I'd love to
see (and test) it.
thanks,
-serge
--
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