Quoting Stéphane Graber (stgra...@ubuntu.com):
> On 02/19/2013 03:06 PM, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting Stéphane Graber (stgra...@ubuntu.com):
> >> On 02/14/2013 11:30 AM, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> >>> This is needed for lxc_wait and lxc_monitor to handle lxcpath. However,
> >>> the full path name is
On 02/19/2013 03:06 PM, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Stéphane Graber (stgra...@ubuntu.com):
>> On 02/14/2013 11:30 AM, Serge Hallyn wrote:
>>> This is needed for lxc_wait and lxc_monitor to handle lxcpath. However,
>>> the full path name is limited to 108 bytes. Should we use a md5sum of
>>> the
Quoting Stéphane Graber (stgra...@ubuntu.com):
> On 02/14/2013 11:30 AM, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> > This is needed for lxc_wait and lxc_monitor to handle lxcpath. However,
> > the full path name is limited to 108 bytes. Should we use a md5sum of
> > the lxcpath instead of the path itself?
>
>
> I
On 02/14/2013 11:30 AM, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> This is needed for lxc_wait and lxc_monitor to handle lxcpath. However,
> the full path name is limited to 108 bytes. Should we use a md5sum of
> the lxcpath instead of the path itself?
I thought of instead using the cgroup name (including group and
