Re: checkpoint/restart ABI

[Jonathan Corbet]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 23:47:49 +0200
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> The other problem that you really need to solve is interface
> stability. What you are creating is a binary representation
> of many kernel internal data structures, so in our common
> rules, you have to make sure that you remain forward and
> backward compatible. Simply saying that you need to run
> an identical kernel when restarting from a checkpoint is not
> enough IMHO.

OTOH, making one of these checkpoint files go into any 2.6.x kernel
seems like a very high bar, to the point, perhaps, of killing this
feature entirely.  

There could be a case for viewing sys_restore() as being a lot like
sys_init_module() - a view into kernel internals that goes beyond the
normal user-space ABI, and beyond the stability guarantee.  It might be
possible to create a certain amount of version portability with a
modversions-like mechanism, but it sure seems hard to do better than
that.

jon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/