Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757209AbYJMIVb (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Oct 2008 04:21:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754710AbYJMIVX (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Oct 2008 04:21:23 -0400 Received: from mtagate5.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.154]:38968 "EHLO mtagate5.de.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754575AbYJMIVW (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Oct 2008 04:21:22 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] first callers of process_deny_checkpoint() From: Greg Kurz To: Dave Hansen Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" , arnd@arndb.de, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Cedric Le Goater , Ingo Molnar In-Reply-To: <1223659707.11830.57.camel@nimitz> References: <20081009190405.13A253CB@kernel> <20081009190406.1B257119@kernel> <48EF2BAB.1010009@fr.ibm.com> <20081010140430.GA14640@us.ibm.com> <1223657132.10017.42.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1223659707.11830.57.camel@nimitz> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:20:19 +0200 Message-Id: <1223886019.4404.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 (2.22.3.1-1.fc9) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1604 Lines: 39 On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 10:28 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 18:45 +0200, Greg Kurz wrote: > > It's exactly what I meant before, the tracking facility would be awfully > > complicated. It cannot be done that way. > > But there's also something awkward with the flag thing : can you provide > > right now an exhaustive list of all the places where you must raise it ? > > Greg, that's just pure FUD. We don't say that spinlocks are a bad thing > because we can't come up with an exhaustive list of places where we need > locking. > > We'll do plenty of checks at checkpoint time. > > We'll do plenty of checks at runtime. > > Neither will work completely on its own, and neither will be exhaustive. > The way this will work is just as Serge said: in true Linux style, we'll > add more places users of process_deny_checkpoint() incrementally as we > find them and as people complain. We'll also be incrementally removing > them as we add functionality. > > -- Dave > Well then I misunderstood the purpose your initial postings. Sorry. :) -- Gregory Kurz gkurz@fr.ibm.com Software Engineer @ IBM/Meiosys http://www.ibm.com Tel +33 (0)534 638 479 Fax +33 (0)561 400 420 "Anarchy is about taking complete responsibility for yourself." Alan Moore. -- 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/