Re: [Devel] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/4] checkpoint-restart:general infrastructure

[Dave Hansen]

On Thu, 2008-08-14 at 12:09 +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
> E.g. consider we are saving a container image on ipv6 node and trying 
> to restore from it on the one without the ipv6. In that case we *may*
> have some object of for example CKPT_IPV6_IFA type of CLPT_IPV6_SOCK_INFO
> and fail the restoration process when finding such in an input file. But 
> what we should *not* do is to write any information about whether we had
> the CONFIG_IPV6 turned on on the dumping side and check for this on the
> restoring side.

The only problem I can see with this is that you lose efficiency,
especially when you have to build your checkpoint image with lots of
things that are config-specific.

The approach sounds like a good one in theory, but I'm a bit skeptical
that we could stick to it in practice, in a mainline kernel where there
are billions of config options.  It is definitely something to strive
for, though.  Good point!

-- Dave

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/