If the current interface is insufficient, we should first expand it in
such a way that it can be used for checkpoint. That certainly won't
work in all cases. fork(), for instance, doesn't take any arguments and
is going to be awfully hard to expand. :)
I'd love to hear some of your
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 8:04 PM, Li Zefan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The function does not modify anything (except the temporary
css template), so it's sufficient to hold read lock.
Signed-off-by: Li Zefan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Acked-by: Paul Menage [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks.
---
Li Zefan wrote:
The function does not modify anything (except the temporary
css template), so it's sufficient to hold read lock.
Signed-off-by: Li Zefan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
kernel/cgroup.c |4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/cgroup.c
Hi!
When restarting a process that has been previously checkpointed, that process
should keep on using some of its ids (such as its process id, or sysV ipc
ids).
This patch provides a feature that can help ensuring this saved state reuse:
it makes it possible to create an object with a
Quoting Eric W. Biederman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Serge E. Hallyn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm hoping to be able to get back at this in the week or so as things
settle down from my move. My last patches should be in my proof of
concept network namespace tree, if they don't show up
Hello Matt !
Add a signal control group subsystem that allows us to send signals to all
tasks
in the control group by writing the desired signal(7) number to the kill file.
NOTE: We don't really need per-cgroup state, but control groups doesn't
support
stateless subsystems yet.
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 8:17 AM, Cedric Le Goater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Matt !
Add a signal control group subsystem that allows us to send signals to all
tasks
in the control group by writing the desired signal(7) number to the kill
file.
NOTE: We don't really need
Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Subrata,
pty namespaces as such are not going to happen. We'll be pursuing
full-scale device namespaces instead.
Again, either that, or tie Unix98 pty's closer into devpts (which would
have other advantages, in particular avoiding the double lookup) which
would
Serge E. Hallyn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Quoting Serge E. Hallyn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Quoting Eric W. Biederman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Serge E. Hallyn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm hoping to be able to get back at this in the week or so as things
settle down from my move. My last
Kirill Korotaev wrote:
If the current interface is insufficient, we should first expand it in
such a way that it can be used for checkpoint. That certainly won't
work in all cases. fork(), for instance, doesn't take any arguments and
is going to be awfully hard to expand. :)
I'd love to
10 matches
Mail list logo
