On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:05:47 -0800
Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 12:07 -0500, Oren Laadan wrote:
> > Checkpoint-restart (c/r): a couple of fixes in preparation for 64bit
> > architectures, and a couple of fixes for bugss (comments from Serge
> > Hallyn, Sudakvev Bhattiprolu and Nathan Lynch). Updated and tested
> > against v2.6.28.
> > Aiming for -mm.
> Is there anything that we're waiting on before these can go into -mm? I
> think the discussion on the first few patches has died down to almost
> nothing. They're pretty reviewed-out. Do they need a run in -mm? I
> don't think linux-next is quite appropriate since they're not _quite_
> aimed at mainline yet.
I raised an issue a few months ago and got inconclusively waffled at.
Let us revisit.
I am concerned that this implementation is a bit of a toy, and that we
don't know what a sufficiently complete implementation will look like.
There is a risk that if we merge the toy we either:
a) end up having to merge unacceptably-expensive-to-maintain code to
make it a non-toy or
b) decide not to merge the unacceptably-expensive-to-maintain code,
leaving us with a toy or
c) simply cannot work out how to implement the missing functionality.
So perhaps we can proceed by getting you guys to fill out the following
- In bullet-point form, what features are present?
- In bullet-point form, what features are missing, and should be added?
- Is it possible to briefly sketch out the design of the to-be-added
For extra marks:
- Will any of this involve non-trivial serialisation of kernel
objects? If so, that's getting into the
unacceptably-expensive-to-maintain space, I suspect.
- Does (or will) this feature also support process migration? If
not, I'd have thought this to be a showstopper.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html