Re: [PATCH 0/2] resource control file system - aka containers on top of nsproxy!

[Eric W. Biederman]

"Paul Menage" <menage@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> No, Sam was saying that nsproxy should be the object that all resource
> controllers hook off.

I think implementation wise this tends to make sense.
However it should have nothing to do with semantics.

If we have a lot of independent resource controllers.  Placing the
pointer to their data structures directly in nsproxy instead of in
task_struct sounds like a reasonable idea but it should not be user
visible.

Eric
-
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/