Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Daniel Lezcano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> By the way, why don't you introduce the reverse operation ? >> I think implementing the reverse operation will be a nightmare, IMHO >> it is safe to say we deny checkpointing for the process life-cycle >> either if the created resource was destroyed before we initiate the >> checkpoint. > > it's also a not too interesting case. The end goal is to just be able to > checkpoint everything that matters - in the long run there simply wont > be many places that are marked 'cannot checkpoint'. > > So the ability to deny a checkpoint is a transitional feature - a > flexible CR todo list in essence - but also needed for > applications/users that want to rely on CR being a dependable facility. > > It would be bad for most of the practical usecases of checkpointing to > allow the checkpointing of an app, just to see it break on restore due > to lost context.
Actually it need not wait for restore to fail - it can fail during the checkpoint, as soon as the unsupported feature is encountered. Adding that flag of what you suggest will help make it more vocal and obvious that a feature isn't supported, even without the user actually trying to take a checkpoint. I like that I idea. Oren. > > Ingo > _______________________________________________ > Containers mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
