On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 14:24 -0700, Dan Smith wrote: > > I'm sure it would be doable. However, checkpointing the routes that > way would: > > (a) Be inconsistent with how we checkpoint all the other resources, > including the other network resources we handle from the kernel > with rtnl
My 2c: The problem as i see it (with all net structures not just routes - i was equally pessimistic when i saw those other net structure checkpoint/restore changes) is you are faced with a herculean high-maintainance effort... You have a separate piece of code which populates structures that _you_ maintain for attributes that are defined elsewhere by other people. Nobody adding a new attribute that is very important to route restoration for example is likely to change your code. Unless you tie the two together (so changing one forces the coder to change the other). And once people deploy kernels it is hard to change. Historically (for pragmatic reasons) such rich interfaces sit in user space - much easier to update user space. cheers, jamal _______________________________________________ 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
