[PATCH 0/6] /proc/pid/checkpointable

[Oren Laadan]

Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-03-18 at 12:16 -0400, Oren Laadan wrote:
>> My suggestions works for this two: we add a flag CR_CTX_DRYRUN; a task
>> can ask to checkpoint itself, or another task, with CR_CTX_DRYRUN and
>> the checkpoint code runs without actual effect. (If we don't want to
>> expose the actual flag to userspace, then we simply use it in an
>> implementation of a /proc/PID/checkpointable operation).
> 
> This mostly falls short answering the question "Where/when did I go
> wrong?"  Personally, I think that is critical for getting good bug
> reports out of normal Joes that might not really be interested in c/r
> development itself.  It is like lockdep.  The guys/gals posting those
> reports really don't know about kernel locking, but they are able to
> improve it anyway.
> 

As long as we have the descriptive text accompanied, it will answer the
"where/why" question.

I can't think of an example where for me, as the developer, the "when"
question was important in finding and fixing an unsupported corner.

Can you think of examples where this would be that much more informative
then simply answering the "where/what" question ?

Oren.