Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 20 Feb 2006 17:26:13 +0300 | From | Kirill Korotaev <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |