[RFC][PATCH 00/11] track files for checkpointability
dave at linux.vnet.ibm.com
Tue Mar 10 10:47:30 PDT 2009
On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 12:45 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Are you saying that the message should identify the child instead of
> > the parent as the uncheckpointable task?
> Yes. The parent may have opened the fd (or, importantly, may NOT have)
> but the child is the one now getting that 'dirty' fd and being newly
> marked uncheckpointable.
Yeah. It is kinda the parent's *fault* but this is the spot where we've
chosen to 'taint' the child. If I were looking back in the logs, I'd be
wondering from where the child's 'taint' flag came from. This is the
spot I should be looking for.
More information about the Containers