Quoting Paul Menage ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > On 4/3/07, Serge E. Hallyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
