On 06/09/2010 07:29 PM, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
> Michel Normand [norm...@fr.ibm.com] wrote:
> | Le mardi 08 juin 2010 à 19:07 -0700, Sukadev Bhattiprolu a écrit :
> |> I am not too sure, but if user wants to stop a container is there a
> |> reason not to implicitly unfreeze the container and
>> [Dan Smith pointed this out while testing out-of-tree lxc-checkpoint/restart]
MH> Yup. Because it's frozen pending signals aren't delivered until after
MH> the task is thawed.
Exactly, and Daniel said this was needed as well, so:
MH> Acked-by: Matt Helsley
Acked-by: Dan Smith
Thanks Suka!
Michel Normand [norm...@fr.ibm.com] wrote:
| Le mardi 08 juin 2010 à 19:07 -0700, Sukadev Bhattiprolu a écrit :
| > I am not too sure, but if user wants to stop a container is there a
| > reason not to implicitly unfreeze the container and stop ?
| >
| > ---
| > From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu
| > Date
On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 07:07:04PM -0700, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
> I am not too sure, but if user wants to stop a container is there a
> reason not to implicitly unfreeze the container and stop ?
>
> ---
> From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu
> Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 18:42:00 -0700
> Subject: [PATCH 1/1]
Le mardi 08 juin 2010 à 19:07 -0700, Sukadev Bhattiprolu a écrit :
> I am not too sure, but if user wants to stop a container is there a
> reason not to implicitly unfreeze the container and stop ?
>
> ---
> From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu
> Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 18:42:00 -0700
> Subject: [PATCH 1/1]:
