lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation.
> as does Linux-VServer currently, but do you have
> any proof that putting all the fields together in
> one big structure actually has any (dis)advantage
> over separate structures?
have no proof and don't mind if there are many pointers. Though this
doesn't look helpful to me as well.

>>mmm, how do you plan to pass additional flags to clone()?
>>e.g. strong or weak isolation of pids?
> do you really have to pass them at clone() time?
> would shortly after be more than enough?
> what if you want to change those properties later?
I don't think it is always suiatable to do configuration later.
We had races in OpenVZ on VPS create/stop against exec/enter etc. (even
introduced flag is_running). So I have some experience to believe it
will be painfull place.

>>this syscalls will start handling this new namespace and that's all.
>>this is not different from many syscalls approach.
> well, let's defer the 'how amny syscalls' issue to
> a later time, when we know what we want to implement :)
agreed.

Kirill


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-02-20 15:28    [W:0.233 / U:0.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site