Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 7/7] containers (V7): Container interface to nsproxy subsystem

[Serge E. Hallyn]

Quoting Paul Menage (menage@xxxxxxxxxx):
> On 4/3/07, Serge E. Hallyn <serue@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >But frankly I don't know where we stand right now wrt the containers
> >patches.  Do most people want to go with Vatsa's latest version moving
> >containers into nsproxy?  Has any other development been going on?
> >Paul, have you made any updates?
> 
> I've not made major changes since the last patch post, just some small
> optimizations and fixes - I've been too tied up with other stuff.
> 
> Whilst I've got no objection in general to using nsproxy rather than
> the container_group object that I introduced in my latest patches, I

Hmm, my largest objection had been that the nsproxy as a container
structure would end up pointing to nsproxy as a namespace proxy.

But if we do as Eric suggests and have one subsystem per namespace type,
rather than one subsystem for all namespaces, I guess that is no longer
a problem.

That still leaves yours.

> think that Vatsa's approach of losing the general container object is
> flawed, since it loses any kind of per-group generic state (e.g. "this
> container is being deleted") and last time I saw it, I think it would
> tend to lose processes so that they didn't show up in any directory in
> the container fs.
> 
> Paul
> -
> 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/
-
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/