On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 04:40:39PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 01:32 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > Uncheckpointable should be a one-way flag anyway. We want this
> > > > to become usable, so uncheckpointable functionality should be as
> > > > painful as possible, to make
On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 01:32 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > Uncheckpointable should be a one-way flag anyway. We want this
> > > to become usable, so uncheckpointable functionality should be as
> > > painful as possible, to make sure it's getting fixed ...
> >
> > Again, as these patches stand,
* Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 23:23 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Dave Hansen wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 11:53 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > In any case, by designing checkpointing to reuse the existing LSM
> > > > callbacks, we'd hit multiple birds with the same st
On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 23:23 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Dave Hansen wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 11:53 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > In any case, by designing checkpointing to reuse the existing LSM
> > > callbacks, we'd hit multiple birds with the same stone. (One of
> > > which is the co
* Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 11:53 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > In any case, by designing checkpointing to reuse the existing LSM
> > callbacks, we'd hit multiple birds with the same stone. (One of
> > which is the constant complaints about the runtime costs of the LSM
> > callb
