Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation.

[Kirill Korotaev <dev@sw.ru>]

> 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/