Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] c/r: Add AF_INET support (v3)

From: Dan Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 12:10:28 -0700

JD> Why?  It seems that this would cause checkpoints to fail
JD> unexpectedly,

Well, there are other places where the checkpoint will fail with EBUSY
because something is in a transitional state.

JD> and is probably unnecessary in a migration scenario, because the
JD> peer will retransmit the segments given appropriate ACKs.

Cool, sounds like we can punt on this particular one... Thanks :)

-- 
Dan Smith
IBM Linux Technology Center
email: [email-masked]