linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 05/10] Core checkpoint/restart support code

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 4 Apr 2011 15:29:09 -0500
From:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	Nathan Lynch <ntl@...ox.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] Core checkpoint/restart support code

Quoting Andrew Morton (akpm@...ux-foundation.org):
> On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 13:51:20 -0500 "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com> wrote:
> 
> > Quoting Andrew Morton (akpm@...ux-foundation.org):
> > > On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 11:27:53 -0500 "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Andrew (Cc:d), did you see this thread go by, and it did it look
> > > > in any way more palatable to you?  Have you had any thoughts on
> > > > checkpoint/restart in the last few months?  Or did that horse quietly
> > > > die over winter?
> > > 
> > > argh, it was the victim of LIFO.
> > > 
> > > All I can say at this stage is that I'll be interested next time it
> > > comes past, sorry.
> > 
> > Thanks, that's good to know.
> > 
> > As you know, we started with a minimal patchset, then grew it over time
> > to answer the "but how will you (xyz) without uglifying the kernel".
> > Would you recommend we go back to keeping a separate minimal patchset,
> > or that we develop on the current, pretty feature-full version?  I'm not
> > convinced believe there will be bandwidth to keep two trees and do both
> > justice.
> 
> The minimal patchset is too minimal for Oren's use and the maximal
> patchset seems to have run aground on general kernel sentiment.  So I
> guess you either take the minimal patchset and make it less minimal or
> take the maximal patchset and make it less maximal, ending up with the
> same thing.  How's that for hand-waving useless obviousnesses :)

Perfect, thanks :)

> One obvious approach is to merge the minimal patchset then, over time,
> sneak more stuff into it so we end up with the maximal patchset which
> people didn't like.  Don't do that :)

Hoping that "which people didn't like" is purely conjecture.

Ok, I'll advocate for proceeding with the full patch-set as long as we
can.  Thanks, Andrew.

-serge
--
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/