Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755936Ab1DDXOa (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Apr 2011 19:14:30 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:45370 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754028Ab1DDXO3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Apr 2011 19:14:29 -0400 Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 16:15:50 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Matt Helsley Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" , containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, Nathan Lynch , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alexey Dobriyan Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] Core checkpoint/restart support code Message-Id: <20110404161550.1ab5347e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20110404215511.GA27628@count0.beaverton.ibm.com> References: <1298936432-29607-1-git-send-email-ntl@pobox.com> <1298936432-29607-6-git-send-email-ntl@pobox.com> <20110403190324.GD15044@hallyn.com> <1301929228.31531.39.camel@tp-t61> <20110404151017.GA4857@hallyn.com> <1301931608.31531.49.camel@tp-t61> <20110404162753.GA3456@hallyn.com> <20110404104119.78189678.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20110404185119.GB4782@peq.hallyn.com> <20110404124222.fd5eb85b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20110404215511.GA27628@count0.beaverton.ibm.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.0.2 (GTK+ 2.20.1; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1094 Lines: 22 On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 14:55:11 -0700 Matt Helsley wrote: > However I think we need some review before we continue modifying it. We > had a minimal patch set which evolved into the current maximal set. It > never really got the reviews outside our little group that it needed. > Now we're back with a new minimal patch set. You're asking us to do the same > thing and expect different results -- stack more patches on top and expect to > get it reviewed. OK, but what reason do we have to believe this time will be > any different? None whatsoever. It could be that the two sets "a sufficiently useful c/r implementation" and "a c/r implementation which will be acceptable" have no intersection. IOW, there is no solution. But I haven't looked at c/r patches in quite some time, hence the hand-waving and useless platitudes. -- 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/