[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090223234911.GB2590@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:49:11 -0600
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Oren Laadan <orenl@...columbia.edu>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/5] check files for checkpointability
Quoting Dave Hansen (dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com):
>
> Introduce a files_struct counter to indicate whether a particular
> file_struct has ever contained a file which can not be
> checkpointed. This flag is a one-way trip; once it is set, it may
> not be unset.
>
> We assume at allocation that a new files_struct is clean and may
> be checkpointed. However, as soon as it has had its files filled
> from its parent's, we check it for real in __scan_files_for_cr().
> At that point, we mark it if it contained any uncheckpointable
> files.
>
> We also check each 'struct file' when it is installed in a fd
> slot. This way, if anyone open()s or managed to dup() an
> unsuppored file, we can catch it.
So what is the point of tagging the files_struct counter and
making it a one-way trip? Why not just check every file at
checkpoint time?
-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