Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753306AbYJVDQT (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:16:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751548AbYJVDQJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:16:09 -0400 Received: from NaN.false.org ([208.75.86.248]:57474 "EHLO nan.false.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751226AbYJVDQI (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:16:08 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 1250 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:16:08 EDT Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 22:55:13 -0400 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Oren Laadan Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" , Andrew Morton , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mingo@elte.hu, hpa@zytor.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk Subject: Re: [RFC v7][PATCH 2/9] General infrastructure for checkpoint restart Message-ID: <20081022025513.GA7504@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Oren Laadan , "Serge E. Hallyn" , Andrew Morton , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mingo@elte.hu, hpa@zytor.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk References: <1224481237-4892-1-git-send-email-orenl@cs.columbia.edu> <1224481237-4892-3-git-send-email-orenl@cs.columbia.edu> <20081021124130.a002e838.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20081021202410.GA10423@us.ibm.com> <48FE82DF.6030005@cs.columbia.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <48FE82DF.6030005@cs.columbia.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1386 Lines: 31 On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 09:33:19PM -0400, Oren Laadan wrote: > >> What happens if I pass it a pid of a process which I _do_ own, but it > >> does not refer to a container's init process? > > > > I would assume that do_checkpoint() would return -EINVAL, but it's a > > great question: Oren, did you have another plan? > > Since we intentional provide minimal functionality to keep the patchset > simple and allow easy review - we only checkpoint one task; it doesn't > really matter because we don't deal with the entire container. > > With the ability to checkpoint multiple process we will have to ensure > that we checkpoint an entire container. I planned to return -EINVAL if > the target task isn't a container init(1). Another option, if people > prefer, is to use any task in a container to "represent" the entire > container. I haven't been following - but why this whole container restriction? Checkpoint/restart of individual processes is very useful too. There are issues with e.g. IPC, but I'm not convinced they're substantially different than the issues already present for a container. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery -- 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/