Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
3 bytes added ,  12:01, 21 September 2012
Resort them so that news are on top
Line 1: Line 1: −
* Pavel sent POC in LKML.
+
* Andrew Morton starts to doubt in CRIU [https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/14/384 "link"]
From: Pavel Emelyanov
  −
Subject: [RFC][PATCH 0/7 + tools] Checkpoint/restore mostly in the userspace
  −
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 17:45:10 +0400
     −
* Jonathan Corbet wrote the article at lwn.net [http://lwn.net/Articles/452184/ "Checkpoint/restart (mostly) in user space"]
+
Thus far our (my) approach has been to trickle the c/r support code
 +
into mainline as it is developed.  Under the assumption that the end
 +
result will be acceptable and useful kernel code.
 +
 +
I'm afraid that I'm losing confidence in that approach. We have this
 +
patchset, we have Stanislav's "IPC: checkpoint/restore in userspace
 +
enhancements" (which apparently needs to get more complex to support
 +
LSM context c/r). I simply *don't know* what additional patchsets are
 +
expected.  And from what you told me it sounds like networking support
 +
is at a very early stage and I fear for what the end result of that
 +
will look like.
 +
 +
So I don't feel that I can continue feeding these things into mainline
 +
until someone can convince me that we won't have a nasty mess (and/or
 +
an unsufficiently useful feature) at the end of the project.
    
*  Linus merged a first wave of patches, adding his thoughts about this (commit 0994695)
 
*  Linus merged a first wave of patches, adding his thoughts about this (commit 0994695)
 +
 
     - checkpoint/restart feature work.                                                                                                     
 
     - checkpoint/restart feature work.                                                                                                     
 
                                                                                                                                            
 
                                                                                                                                            
Line 28: Line 40:  
       eventually comes to tears and the project as a whole fails, it should                                                               
 
       eventually comes to tears and the project as a whole fails, it should                                                               
 
       be a simple matter to go through and delete all trace of it.
 
       be a simple matter to go through and delete all trace of it.
* Andrew Morton starts to doubt in CRIU [https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/14/384 "link"]
+
 
Thus far our (my) approach has been to trickle the c/r support code
+
* Jonathan Corbet wrote the article at lwn.net [http://lwn.net/Articles/452184/ "Checkpoint/restart (mostly) in user space"]
into mainline as it is developed.  Under the assumption that the end
+
 
result will be acceptable and useful kernel code.
+
* Pavel sent POC in LKML.
   
+
  From: Pavel Emelyanov
  I'm afraid that I'm losing confidence in that approach.  We have this
+
  Subject: [RFC][PATCH 0/7 + tools] Checkpoint/restore mostly in the userspace
patchset, we have Stanislav's "IPC: checkpoint/restore in userspace
+
  Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 17:45:10 +0400
  enhancements" (which apparently needs to get more complex to support
  −
LSM context c/r).  I simply *don't know* what additional patchsets are
  −
expected.  And from what you told me it sounds like networking support
  −
is at a very early stage and I fear for what the end result of that
  −
will look like.
  −
  −
So I don't feel that I can continue feeding these things into mainline
  −
until someone can convince me that we won't have a nasty mess (and/or
  −
an unsufficiently useful feature) at the end of the project.
 
Anonymous user

Navigation menu