On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnie...@gmail.com> wrote: > reassign 595920 src:linux linux-2.6/2.6.32-21 > found 595920 linux/3.0.0~rc1-1~experimental.1 > quit > > Grant McLean wrote[1]: > >> It looks like someone has got the kernel patches working with 3.2 (and >> later in the thread, 3.3). >> >> http://www.mail-archive.com/lxc-users@lists.sourceforge.net/msg03397.html > > Thanks! In that message, Xavi León wrote: > > | FYI, I attach the kernel patchset (based on the 3.0.0-lxc1 version on > | the website) for the linux version 3.2.9. Mainly I removed the patches > | already applied upstream and minor twicks to comply with some changes > | on the kernel. I guess they may need still some work to make it > > The tarball contains six patches: > > 00001-add-SA_CLDREBOOT-flag.patch > 00002-Notify-container-init-parent-a-reboot-occured.patch > 00007-pidns-Don-t-allow-new-pids-after-the-namespace-is-d.patch > 00008-pidns-Support-unsharing-the-pid-namespace.patch > 00014-ns-proc-Add-support-for-the-mount-namespace.patch > 00015-ns-proc-add-support-for-the-pid-namespace.patch > > They don't match the patches in the 3.0.0-lxc1 patchset I > downloaded (tarball sha1sum: 62be7a82f83c1b2dd0f45e23d09d97d3b49d1e8b) > too closely. Xavi, where do these patches come from? Can we have > your sign-off on them? (See Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what > this means.)
Hi, The patches comes from [1]. They are basically a stripped down version of those patches. I removed the code already included upstream, did some minor changes and rebased the patches so no real hard development -- that's why checksum doesn't match. In [2] and [3] (patches 19901 - 19915) you can find the patches for upstream kernel 3.2 and 3.3 respectively. I tested them and they work, although I cannot assure they are correct and bug free. To be honest, I doubt they can make it upstream in their current shape. I moved into other stuff and I didn't follow the progress of those patches on subsequent kernels -- maybe they are already applied? I can certainly sign-off them if you are willing to continue the work on them. However, I don't have a clear idea on how to proceed once they are signed-off. Do I need to send them here? Is it ok to just link to the github repo [2-3]? cheers, Xavi [1] http://lxc.sourceforge.net/patches/linux/3.0.0/3.0.0-lxc1/patches/ [2] https://github.com/confine-project/openwrt/tree/master/target/linux/generic/patches-3.2 [2] https://github.com/confine-project/openwrt/tree/master/target/linux/generic/patches-3.3 > >> It really would be good to get lxc-attach working on a stock kernel. > > Thanks much for your work on this. > > Sincerely, > Jonathan > > [1] http://bugs.debian.org/595920 -- ================================================================ 0 0 0 Xavi León | UPC - DAC - Distributed Systems Group 0 0 0 xl...@ac.upc.edu | Room D6-116 0 0 0 (+34) 93 4017187 | http://personals.ac.upc.edu/xleon ================================================================ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/ca+hbk2yy69pj6p7bktuqv0jvh+ujw8ewext5bpa7feoykkb...@mail.gmail.com
