From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1758748AbZCBRo5@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1758748AbZCBRo5 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 2 Mar 2009 12:44:57 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754143AbZCBRot
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Mon, 2 Mar 2009 12:44:49 -0500
Received: from e37.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.158]:58970 "EHLO
	e37.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754004AbZCBRos (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 2 Mar 2009 12:44:48 -0500
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 11:44:33 -0600
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Nathan Lynch <ntl@pobox.com>,
       containers <containers@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
       "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       hch@infradead.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
       Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 8/8] check files for checkpointability
Message-ID: <20090302174433.GA12708@us.ibm.com>
References: <20090227203425.F3B51176@kernel> <20090227203435.98735E54@kernel> <20090302133754.GA8033@us.ibm.com> <20090302095917.6cfeda55@thinkcentre.lan> <1236011251.26788.450.camel@nimitz> <20090302112247.76bb3662@thinkcentre.lan> <1236015052.26788.471.camel@nimitz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1236015052.26788.471.camel@nimitz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Quoting Dave Hansen (dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com):
> On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 11:22 -0600, Nathan Lynch wrote:
> > No.. I mean what if a process 1234 does
> > 
> > f = fopen("/proc/1234/stat", "r");
> > 
> > and is then checkpointed.  Can that path be resolved during restart,
> > before pid 1234 is alive?
> 
> Heh, that's a good one.
> 
> It does mean that we can't do restore like this:
> 
> 	for_each_cr_task()
> 		restore_task_struct()
> 		restore_files()
> 		...
> 
> We have to do:
> 
> 	for_each_cr_task()
> 		restore_task_struct()
> 	for_each_cr_task()
> 		restore_files()
> 
> 
> -- Dave

Which is what we actually do, right?

Actually we have userspace create the tasks first, and
then each task calls sys_restart which does restore_files().

-serge