On Sat, 2008-08-09 at 00:13 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > I have to wonder if this is just a symptom of us trying to do this the > > wrong way. We're trying to talk the kernel into writing internal gunk > > into a FD. You're right, it is like a splice where one end of the pipe > > is in the kernel. > > > > Any thoughts on a better way to do this? > > Maybe you can invert the logic and let the new syscalls create a file > descriptor, and then have user space read or splice the checkpoint > data from it, and restore it by writing to the file descriptor. > It's probably easy to do using anon_inode_getfd() and would solve this > problem, but at the same time make checkpointing the current thread > hard if not impossible.
Yeah, it does seem kinda backwards. But, instead of even having to worry about the anon_inode stuff, why don't we just put it in a fs like everything else? checkpointfs! I'm also really not convinced that putting the entire checkpoint in one glob is really the solution, either. I mean, is system call overhead really a problem here? -- Dave _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@openvz.org https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel