Subject: Re: [Devel] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/4] checkpoint-restart:
	general	infrastructure
From: Dave Hansen <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org>
Cc: Oren Laadan <orenl@cs.columbia.edu>, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org,
       Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
In-Reply-To: <48A3E81C.6010008@openvz.org>
References: <20080807224033.FFB3A2C1@kernel>
	 <20080807224034.735B1F84@kernel>	<200808081146.54834.arnd@arndb.de>
	 <1218221451.19082.36.camel@nimitz> <489CB3CA.6050304@cs.columbia.edu>
	 <48A3E81C.6010008@openvz.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 08:16:17 -0700
Message-Id: <1218726977.23641.6.camel@nimitz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1186
Lines: 25

On Thu, 2008-08-14 at 12:09 +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
> E.g. consider we are saving a container image on ipv6 node and trying 
> to restore from it on the one without the ipv6. In that case we *may*
> have some object of for example CKPT_IPV6_IFA type of CLPT_IPV6_SOCK_INFO
> and fail the restoration process when finding such in an input file. But 
> what we should *not* do is to write any information about whether we had
> the CONFIG_IPV6 turned on on the dumping side and check for this on the
> restoring side.

The only problem I can see with this is that you lose efficiency,
especially when you have to build your checkpoint image with lots of
things that are config-specific.

The approach sounds like a good one in theory, but I'm a bit skeptical
that we could stick to it in practice, in a mainline kernel where there
are billions of config options.  It is definitely something to strive
for, though.  Good point!

-- Dave

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/