394
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 28:
Line 28: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
no edit summary
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
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.