* Dave Hansen d...@linux.vnet.ibm.com 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
On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 23:23 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Dave Hansen d...@linux.vnet.ibm.com 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
* Dave Hansen d...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 23:23 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Dave Hansen d...@linux.vnet.ibm.com 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
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 sure it's
