Matt Helsley wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 07:51:57PM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>> Quoting Oren Laadan (or...@librato.com):
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> More practically, requiring userspace to pass over a flag
>>>> consisting of CKPT_DBG_MEM|CKPT_DBG|FILE|CKPT_DBG|TASK, and
>>>> handle corresponding usage flags, is not nice.
>>> I agree with you on about this. Maybe we want a better
>>> interface ?
>>>
>>> Which brings me to this random thought: maybe we want to
>>> make the fourth argument of sys_{checkpoint,restart} a
>>> structure, to make it easier to extend it in the future
>>> without having to go throw a clone3-like hell...
>
> Adding new kernel interfaces is supposed to be somewhat hellish.
>
>>> Specifically, this structure could now be:
>>>
>>> struct ckpt_args {
>>> int version;
>>> int logfd;
>>> int logmask;
>>> };
>>>
>>> (or use union checkpoint {} and union restart {} to tell
>>> between checkpoint- and restart-related args.
>> Well I don't like passing structs to the kernel actually (and
>
> Let's not do this. I agree that passing structs, when unnecessary,
> is gross. Especially if it gets used to extend the arguments
> passed via the syscall interface (new flag values I don't mind).
Ok, we already allow future extension by being strict about
which flags are taken or not.
Then what do we do with logmask ? I prefer it to be a per-syscall
value as opposed to a system-wise setting.
Oren.
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
contain...@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel@openvz.org
https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
