On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 07:31:28PM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Matt Helsley (matth...@us.ibm.com):
<snip>
> > +struct file* ep_file_restore(struct ckpt_ctx *ctx,
> > + struct ckpt_hdr_file *h)
> > +{
> > + struct file *epfile;
> > + int epfd, ret;
> > +
> > + if (h->h.type != CKPT_HDR_FILE ||
> > + h->h.len != sizeof(*h) ||
> > + h->f_type != CKPT_FILE_EPOLL)
> > + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> > +
> > + epfd = sys_epoll_create1(h->f_flags & EPOLL_CLOEXEC);
> > + if (epfd < 0)
> > + return ERR_PTR(epfd);
> > + epfile = fget(epfd);
> > + sys_close(epfd); /* harmless even if an error occured */
> > + BUG_ON(!epfile);
>
> Would perhaps return ERR_PTR(-ENOENT) be nicer? (And maybe safer - I'm
> not quite clear on under which arches BUG_ON does nothing).
OK, good idea. Mind if I post it as a separate patch to be merged with
this series?
>
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Needed before we can properly restore the watches and enforce the
> > + * limit on watch numbers.
> > + */
> > + ret = restore_file_common(ctx, epfile, h);
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > + goto fput_out;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Defer restoring the epoll items until the file table is
> > + * fully restored. Ensures that valid file objrefs will resolve.
> > + */
> > + ret = deferqueue_add_ptr(ctx->files_deferq, ctx, ep_items_restore,
> > NULL);
> > + if (ret < 0) {
> > +fput_out:
> > + fput(epfile);
> > + epfile = ERR_PTR(ret);
> > + }
> > + return epfile;
> > +}
> > +
> > +#endif /* CONFIG_CHECKPOINT */
> > +
> > static int __init eventpoll_init(void)
> > {
> > struct sysinfo si;
> > diff --git a/include/linux/checkpoint_hdr.h b/include/linux/checkpoint_hdr.h
> > index ca2500d..1a3edab 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/checkpoint_hdr.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/checkpoint_hdr.h
> > @@ -119,6 +119,8 @@ enum {
> > #define CKPT_HDR_TTY CKPT_HDR_TTY
> > CKPT_HDR_TTY_LDISC,
> > #define CKPT_HDR_TTY_LDISC CKPT_HDR_TTY_LDISC
> > + CKPT_HDR_EPOLL_ITEMS = 391, /* Follows file-table */
>
> What is the comment supposed to mean (other than that such
> comments inevitably become stale :)?
It means that these items must be present some point after the
file-table in order for the checkpoint image to restart. That's
why I chose a number near 400 -- it looked like [300-400) were set
aside for file objects.
Cheers,
-Matt Helsley
_______________________________________________
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
