[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTim-M02Z1igZ4LyXH_Qgyzx1iD0ZQkRT6dxcSE3P@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 18:38:55 +0200
From: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
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 Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> 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.
Because /proc/*/did_exec useless to anyone but C/R (even for reading!).
Because code is much simpler:
tsk->did_exec = !!tsk_img->did_exec;
+
__u8 did_exec;
--
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