Eric W. Biederman wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > >>This patchset is a part of an effort to change some syscalls behavior for >>checkpoint restart. > > > Thanks for doing this. > > Unfortunately this makes a very good case of why we don't want to go down > this route. Adding magic parameters to syscalls that are only useful > in one very specific restart case. > > We need good clean interfaces with well defined semantics. > > Something as narrow focused on this is not really useful and it takes > a lot of code to do something very few people will want to actively > do.
All this seems reasonable. Ok, so since we are taking the "new syscalls" direction, I'll try to make a list of the potentially duplicated syscalls. Regards, Nadia > > >>The syntax is: >># echo "LONG1 XX" > /proc/self/task/<my_tid>/next_syscall_data >> next object to be created will have an id set to XX > > > Which his horrible in another way because it is hugely race prone. > > Eric > > > _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
