Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 08 Feb 2006 13:31:12 -0500 | From | Hubertus Franke <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |