Re: [PATCH 05/10] Core checkpoint/restart support code

[Serge E. Hallyn]

Quoting Nathan Lynch (ntl@xxxxxxxxx):
> On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 13:32 -0400, Oren Laadan wrote:
> > From the technical point of view it *is* a big problem:  there are
> > very good reasons why we chose a certain design. 
> > 
> > If Natahan is suggesting in-kernel tree creation as a temporary thing
> > to simplify the code for review - then, given that this patch handles
> > a single process, doing so add lots of unnecessary code, all of which
> > in the kernel.
> > 
> > If this is the beginning of a permanent approach, then it is totally
> > incompatible with what we have done so far, and severely restricts 
> > the kind of use--cases of the project, potentially making it too
> > unattractive for many natural adaptors, like HPC users. Sorry, nack.
> 
> It's not a stopgap measure to "ease review" or whatever; recreating the
> task tree in-kernel is a fundamental - and simplifying - part of the

I hadn't gotten to that part yet, so I'm on the fence.

The API for starting a checkpoint, that I'm not on the fence on.

-serge

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature