Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 8 Jun 2007 13:08:37 -0500 | From | "Serge E. Hallyn" <> | Subject | Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 00/10] Containers(V10): Generic Process Containers |
| |
Quoting Paul Menage (menage@google.com): > On 6/8/07, Serge E. Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com> wrote: > > > >The problem is container_clone() doesn't call ->create explicitly, it > >does vfs_mkdir. So we have no real way of passing in clone_task. > > > > Good point. > > Looking at vfs_mkdir(), it's pretty simple, and really the only bits > that apply to container_clone() are the call to ->mkdir() and possibly > the call to fsnotify_mkdir(). (I think that's maybe how you did it > originally?)
Yes it was.
> Maybe it would make sense to just call container_create() at that > point directly, which would allow us more parameters.
I do fear that that could become a maintenance nightmare. For instance right now there's the call to fsnotify_mkdir(). Other such hooks might be placed at vfs_mkdir, which we'd then likely want to have placed in our container_mkdir() and container_clone() fns. And of course may_create() is static inline in fs/namei.c. It's trivial, but still if it changes we'd want to change the version in kernel/container.c as well.
What would be the main advantage of doing it this way? Do you consider the extra subys->auto_setup() hook to be avoidable bloat?
thanks, -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/
| |