[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1236885269.30142.106.camel@nimitz>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:14:29 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 09/11] check files for checkpointability
On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 10:38 -0700, Matt Helsley wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 08:39:10AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > +static void __scan_files_for_cr(struct files_struct *files)
> > +{
> > + int i;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < files->fdtab.max_fds; i++) {
> > + struct file *f = fcheck_files(files, i);
> > + if (!f)
> > + continue;
> > + if (cr_file_supported(f))
> > + continue;
> > + files_deny_checkpointing(files);
>
> At this point couldn't we skip the rest of the loop iterations?
As it stands, yeah. That makes sense.
> Might it also be useful to print a path to f here? So not only would
> the log show the location in the kernel source but we'd also get some
> idea of which file caused the problem? Of course "f" isn't always
> available everywhere we call files_deny_checkpointing()..
Also a good suggestion. That would help the readability of the warning
a bunch.
-- 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