[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1239723694.32604.62.camel@nimitz>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 08:41:34 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, xemul@...allels.com,
mingo@...e.hu, orenl@...columbia.edu, hch@...radead.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/30] cr: core stuff
On Tue, 2009-04-14 at 19:27 +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > Also, since Dave introduced the fops->checkpoint(), we (or at least I)
> > have been struck by the ugly assymetry with checkpoint() being in fops,
> > and restart() not. Do you have an idea for fixing that?
>
> Module can legally support C/R for its files.
>
> In the end it most certainly will end up with module registering restart
> hook for file type N.
>
> Or module registering hook to restart object type N.
Yeah, that was my expectation as well. There's a point when we just
have too many kinds of checkpoint objects and the switch statements get
out of hand. Oversimplified, of course, but:
init_restart_handler(CR_FD_GENERIC, restore_generic_fd);
init_restart_handler(CR_FD_SOCKET, restore_socket);
init_restart_handler(CR_FD_PIPE, restore_pipe);
The only question to me is whether we allow the handler functions to do
further reading of the checkpoint image or whether the higher-level code
should be feeding them all the data they'll need in some way.
-- 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