* Oren Laadan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Daniel Lezcano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>> By the way, why don't you introduce the reverse operation ?
> >> I think implementing the reverse operation will be a nightmare, IMHO
> >> it is safe to say we deny checkpointing for the process life-cycle
> >> either if the created resource was destroyed before we initiate the
> >> checkpoint.
> >
> > it's also a not too interesting case. The end goal is to just be able to
> > checkpoint everything that matters - in the long run there simply wont
> > be many places that are marked 'cannot checkpoint'.
> >
> > So the ability to deny a checkpoint is a transitional feature - a
> > flexible CR todo list in essence - but also needed for
> > applications/users that want to rely on CR being a dependable facility.
> >
> > It would be bad for most of the practical usecases of checkpointing to
> > allow the checkpointing of an app, just to see it break on restore due
> > to lost context.
>
> Actually it need not wait for restore to fail - it can fail during the
> checkpoint, as soon as the unsupported feature is encountered.
correct, that is the idea.
Ingo
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
