Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

checkpoint: allow to provide an all-in-one workload without restorer #395

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 15, 2024
Merged

checkpoint: allow to provide an all-in-one workload without restorer #395

merged 1 commit into from
Jul 15, 2024

Conversation

shinezyy
Copy link
Contributor

  • Previously, checkpointing always requires user to provide a gcpt restorer. This is not necessary when we provide an all-in-one image containing gcpt restorer + bootloader + kernel

@shinezyy
checkpoint: allow to provide an all-in-one workload without restorer
2590add 
- Previously, checkpointing always requires user to provide a gcpt
restorer. This is not necessary when we provide an all-in-one image
containing gcpt restorer + bootloader + kernel
@shinezyy shinezyy requested a review from xyyy1420 July 14, 2024 13:45
@xyyy1420 xyyy1420 merged commit 7877d85 into master Jul 15, 2024
5 checks passed
@xyyy1420 xyyy1420 deleted the allow-all-in-one-workload-for-cpt branch July 15, 2024 07:46
xinhecuican pushed a commit to xinhecuican/NEMU that referenced this pull request Aug 31, 2024
@shinezyy @xinhecuican
checkpoint: allow to provide an all-in-one workload without restorer (O…
63fab56 
…penXiangShan#395)

- Previously, checkpointing always requires user to provide a gcpt
restorer. This is not necessary when we provide an all-in-one image
containing gcpt restorer + bootloader + kernel
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@xyyy1420 xyyy1420 xyyy1420 approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@shinezyy @xyyy1420