[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1234479924.3152.13.camel@calx>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 17:05:24 -0600
From: Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
orenl@...columbia.edu, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
hpa@...or.com, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Cedric Le Goater <clg@...ibm.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v13][PATCH 00/14] Kernel based checkpoint/restart
On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 14:57 -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > Also, what happens if I checkpoint a process in 2.6.30 and restore it in
> > 2.6.31 which has an expanded idea of what should be restored? Do your
> > file formats handle this sort of forward compatibility or am I
> > restricted to one kernel?
>
> In general, you're restricted to one kernel. But, people have mentioned
> that, if the formats change, we should be able to write in-userspace
> converters for the checkpoint files.
I mentioned this because it seems like a key use case is upgrading
kernels out from under long-lived applications.
--
http://selenic.com : development and support for Mercurial and Linux
--
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