[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1236707250.10626.174.camel@nimitz>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 10:47:30 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
Cc: Nathan Lynch <ntl@...ox.com>,
containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/11] track files for checkpointability
On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 12:45 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Are you saying that the message should identify the child instead of
> > the parent as the uncheckpointable task?
>
> Yes. The parent may have opened the fd (or, importantly, may NOT have)
> but the child is the one now getting that 'dirty' fd and being newly
> marked uncheckpointable.
Yeah. It is kinda the parent's *fault* but this is the spot where we've
chosen to 'taint' the child. If I were looking back in the logs, I'd be
wondering from where the child's 'taint' flag came from. This is the
spot I should be looking for.
-- 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