Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/8] add f_op for checkpointability

[Serge E. Hallyn]

Quoting Dave Hansen (dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx):
> > Also the double-use of the op seem not very nice to me.  Is there any
> > real life use case were you would have the operation on a file but
> > sometimes not allow checkpoiting?
> 
> No, I don't have any good concrete ones.  The first thing that comes to
> mind is something like a pipe.  We can checkpoint when there's no data,
> but must refuse when there's data in the pipe.  In practice, pipes are
> fixable, but it is the kind of situation where I expected it to get
> used.

Hmm, but that's the kind of thing Ingo is resolutely against,
right?  If you've opened some resource that may in certain
cases not be checkpointable, then checkpointing it in certain
states is just wrong, as the app can never know for sure (without
knowing the fragile and temporary implementation details)
whether it is checkpointable.

So we either support pipes or we don't.

(Now maybe you have another use in mind for it...)

-serge
--
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/