[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CE6A69F.4030008@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 17:32:31 +0100
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
CC: Kirill Korotaev <dev@...allels.com>,
Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
Kapil Arya <kapil@....neu.edu>,
Gene Cooperman <gene@....neu.edu>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...allels.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Linux Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2010-discuss] checkpoint-restart: naked patch
On 11/19/2010 05:27 PM, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
>>> The paragon of absurdity is struct task_struct::did_exec .
>>
>> Yeah, then go and figure how to do that in a way which would be useful
>> for other purposes too instead of trying to shove the whole
>> checkpointer inside the kernel. It sure would be harder but hey
>> that's the way it is.
>
> System call for one bit? This is ridiculous.
Why not just a flag in proc entry? It's a frigging single bit.
> Doing execve(2) for userspace C/R is ridicoulous too (and likely
> doesn't work).
Really, whatever. Just keep doing what you're doing. Hey, if it
makes you happy, it can't be too wrong.
--
tejun
--
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