Sukadev Bhattiprolu writes:
> Eric W. Biederman [ebied...@xmission.com] wrote:
> | > | + if (target < RESERVED_PIDS)
> | >
> | > Should we replace RESERVED_PIDS with 0 ? We currently allow new
> | > containers to have pids 1..32K in the first pass and in subsequent
> | > passes assign start
Eric W. Biederman [ebied...@xmission.com] wrote:
| > | + if (target < RESERVED_PIDS)
| >
| > Should we replace RESERVED_PIDS with 0 ? We currently allow new
| > containers to have pids 1..32K in the first pass and in subsequent
| > passes assign starting at RESERVED_PIDS.
|
| If it is a preexistin
In cases where f(x) always returns 0 or <0, I felt free to
remove unconditional ckpt_debugs in favor of ckpt_error()
only on error.
Signed-off-by: Serge E. Hallyn
---
checkpoint/restart.c | 90 -
1 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
Error messages are both sent to an optional user-provided logfile,
and, if CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_DEBUG=y, sent to syslog.
Signed-off-by: Serge E. Hallyn
---
checkpoint/objhash.c |2 +
checkpoint/sys.c | 61 ++---
include/linux/checkpo
For starters it just amounts to a _ckpt_debug(CKPT_ERR),
and has no callers.
Signed-off-by: Serge E. Hallyn
---
include/linux/checkpoint.h | 10 ++
1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/checkpoint.h b/include/linux/checkpoint.h
index dfcb59b..351
Sukadev Bhattiprolu writes:
> Eric W. Biederman [ebied...@xmission.com] wrote:
> | +static int set_pidmap(struct pid_namespace *pid_ns, int target)
> | +{
> | + if (target >= pid_max)
> | + return -1;
>
> I am changing this and the next return to 'return -EINVAL', to match
> an earlie
Eric W. Biederman [ebied...@xmission.com] wrote:
| +static int set_pidmap(struct pid_namespace *pid_ns, int target)
| +{
| + if (target >= pid_max)
| + return -1;
I am changing this and the next return to 'return -EINVAL', to match
an earlier patch in my patchset.
| + if (targ
(compilation cleanup on top of
fix-compile-with-CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_DEBUG-n.patch
)
Signed-off-by: Serge E. Hallyn
---
ipc/checkpoint.c |2 ++
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/ipc/checkpoint.c b/ipc/checkpoint.c
index 8e6e9ba..ab9110a 100644
--- a/ipc/chec
Quoting Oren Laadan (or...@librato.com):
...
> > 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 ?
I'
Michael Kerrisk [mtk.manpa...@googlemail.com] wrote:
| Sukadev,
|
| On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 9:44 PM, Sukadev Bhattiprolu
| wrote:
| > H. Peter Anvin [...@zytor.com] wrote:
| >> On 10/21/2009 01:26 PM, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
| >>>
| >>> My question here is: what does "3" actually mean? In general,
On the one hand, compiling without checkpoing debug saves a
lot of kernel size:
with debug:
-rwxrwxr-x 1 hallyn hallyn 62391508 Oct 21 22:08 vmlinux
without debug:
-rwxrwxr-x 1 hallyn hallyn 62298077 Oct 21 22:33 vmlinux
OTOH the need for this patch just proves my point that we don't
want any
Quoting Matt Helsley (matth...@us.ibm.com):
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 07:31:28PM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting Matt Helsley (matth...@us.ibm.com):
>
>
>
> > > +struct file* ep_file_restore(struct ckpt_ctx *ctx,
> > > + struct ckpt_hdr_file *h)
> > > +{
> > > + st
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 02:14:16PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> Peter,
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 1:38 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > On 10/22/2009 07:26 PM, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> >>>
> >>> "3" is number of arguments.
> >>
> >> sys_clone3(struct clone_struct __user *ucs, pid_t __user *pids)
On 10/22/2009 09:14 PM, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
>
> So, sometimes, a number in a system call should be the bit width of
> some arguments(s), sometimes it should be the number of arguments, and
> sometimes (well, just occasionally, as in mmap2() and clone()) -- it
> should be a version number? Does t
Peter,
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 1:38 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 10/22/2009 07:26 PM, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
>>>
>>> "3" is number of arguments.
>>
>> sys_clone3(struct clone_struct __user *ucs, pid_t __user *pids)
>>
>> It appears to me that the number of arguments is 2.
>>
>
> It was 3 at one
On 10/22/2009 07:26 PM, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
>>
>> "3" is number of arguments.
>
> sys_clone3(struct clone_struct __user *ucs, pid_t __user *pids)
>
> It appears to me that the number of arguments is 2.
>
It was 3 at one point... I'm not sure when that changed last :-/
>> It's better than "exte
Oren Laadan wrote:
>
> Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> Oren Laadan wrote:
>>> Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> [ ... ]
>>
I forgot to mention a constraint with the specified pid : P2 has to
be child of P1.
In other word, you can not specify a pid to clonat which is not your
descendant (includi
Sukadev,
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 9:44 PM, Sukadev Bhattiprolu
wrote:
> H. Peter Anvin [...@zytor.com] wrote:
>> On 10/21/2009 01:26 PM, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
>>>
>>> My question here is: what does "3" actually mean? In general, system
>>> calls have not followed any convention of numbering to in
Peter,
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 3:03 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 10/21/2009 01:26 PM, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
>>
>> My question here is: what does "3" actually mean? In general, system
>> calls have not followed any convention of numbering to indicate
>> successive versions -- clone2() being the
19 matches
Mail list logo
