416
edits
Changes
Created page with "* Pavel sent POC in LKML. 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 ..."
* Pavel sent POC in LKML.
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"]
* Linus merged a first wave of patches, adding his thoughts about this (commit 0994695)
- checkpoint/restart feature work.
A note on this: this is a project by various mad Russians to perform
c/r mainly from userspace, with various oddball helper code added
into the kernel where the need is demonstrated.
So rather than some large central lump of code, what we have is
little bits and pieces popping up in various places which either
expose something new or which permit something which is normally
kernel-private to be modified.
The overall project is an ongoing thing. I've judged that the size
and scope of the thing means that we're more likely to be successful
with it if we integrate the support into mainline piecemeal rather
than allowing it all to develop out-of-tree.
However I'm less confident than the developers that it will all
eventually work! So what I'm asking them to do is to wrap each piece
of new code inside CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE. So if it all
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.
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"]
* Linus merged a first wave of patches, adding his thoughts about this (commit 0994695)
- checkpoint/restart feature work.
A note on this: this is a project by various mad Russians to perform
c/r mainly from userspace, with various oddball helper code added
into the kernel where the need is demonstrated.
So rather than some large central lump of code, what we have is
little bits and pieces popping up in various places which either
expose something new or which permit something which is normally
kernel-private to be modified.
The overall project is an ongoing thing. I've judged that the size
and scope of the thing means that we're more likely to be successful
with it if we integrate the support into mainline piecemeal rather
than allowing it all to develop out-of-tree.
However I'm less confident than the developers that it will all
eventually work! So what I'm asking them to do is to wrap each piece
of new code inside CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE. So if it all
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.