lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [8]   [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.
Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Hubertus Franke (frankeh@watson.ibm.com):
>
>>IMHO, there is only a need to refer to a namespace from the global context.
>>Since one will be moving into a new container, but getting out of one
>>could be prohibitive (e.g. after migration)
>>It does not make sense therefore to know the name of a namespace in
>>a different container.
>
>
> Not sure I agree. What if we are using a private namespace for a
> vserver, and then we want to create a private namespace in there for a
> mobile application. Since we're talking about nested namespaces, this
> should be possible.
>
> Now I believe Eric's code so far would make it so that you can only
> refer to a namespace from it's *creating* context. Still restrictive,
> but seems acceptable.
>

That's what I meant .. as usually used the wrong word..
s/global context/spawing context/g .. because that's the only
place where you have a pid to refer to the newly created container !

> (right?)
>

Yes, seriii .. ahmm serue
> -serge
>


-
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: 2006-02-08 19:33    [W:0.101 / U:0.644 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site