[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8763e3qfl9.fsf@caffeine.danplanet.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 09:55:46 -0700
From: Dan Smith <danms@...ibm.com>
To: Oren Laadan <orenl@...columbia.edu>
Cc: containers@...ts.osdl.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] c/r: Add AF_UNIX support (v5)
OL> It will mostly fix the buffer limits, but not entirely: if the
OL> original socket first raised the limits above defualt, then sent
OL> data (not read by peer), then you'll still need to adjust the
OL> limit before restoring the buffers.
If we cap the buffers in the checkpoint image to the current system
limit (sysctl) and then set the per-socket buffer limit (after reading
them in) to the value in the checkpoint image then we get the desired
result, right?
OL> I can't predict the future, but it's been there forever...
Yeah, after I sent that I remembered that the magic 108 is in the
sockaddr_un structure which is a userspace API and therefore not
likely to change.
OL> But the point is that I would interpret ENOSPC as "storage/space
OL> is exhausted", while here the error is that this value is simply
OL> invalid for the particular kernel on which the restart occurs.
Yep, fair enough.
OL> In the original system, once the file becomes unreachable it
OL> cannot be made reachable again by simple (re)mounting, IOW it can
OL> no longer be connected-to.
Ah, I thought you meant "was reachable on the source system and not
reachable on the target system". I'm with you now :)
--
Dan Smith
IBM Linux Technology Center
email: danms@...ibm.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists