Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750767AbWBFI7I (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2006 03:59:08 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750799AbWBFI7I (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2006 03:59:08 -0500 Received: from mailhub.sw.ru ([195.214.233.200]:31615 "EHLO relay.sw.ru") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750767AbWBFI7H (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2006 03:59:07 -0500 Message-ID: <43E71018.8010104@sw.ru> Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 12:00:08 +0300 From: Kirill Korotaev User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; ru-RU; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20030426 X-Accept-Language: ru-ru, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Eric W. Biederman" CC: Linus Torvalds , Kirill Korotaev , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , frankeh@watson.ibm.com, clg@fr.ibm.com, haveblue@us.ibm.com, greg@kroah.com, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, serue@us.ibm.com, arjan@infradead.org, Rik van Riel , Alexey Kuznetsov , Andrey Savochkin , devel@openvz.org, Pavel Emelianov Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] Virtualization/containers: startup References: <43E38BD1.4070707@openvz.org> <43E3915A.2080000@sw.ru> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2153 Lines: 48 >>I think that a patch like this - particularly just the 1/5 part - makes >>total sense, because regardless of any other details of virtualization, >>every single scheme is going to need this. > I strongly disagree with this approach. I think Al Viro got it > right when he created a separate namespace for filesystems. These patch set introduces separate namespaces as those in filesystems. What exactly you don't like in this approach? Can you be more specific? > First this presumes an all or nothing interface. But that is not > what people are doing. Different people want different subsets > of the functionality. For the migration work I am doing having > multiple meanings for the same uid isn't interesting. What do you mean by that? That you don't care about virtualization of UIDs? So your migration doesn't care at all whether 2 systems have same uids? Do you keep /etc/passwd in sync when do migration? Only full virtualization allows to migrate applications without bugs and different effects. > Secondly by implementing this in one big chunk there is no > migration path when you want to isolate an additional part of the > kernel interface. > > So I really think an approach that allows for incremental progress > that allows for different subsets of this functionality to > be used is a better approach. In clone we already have > a perfectly serviceable interface for that and I have > seen no one refute that. I'm not sure I have seen anyone > get it though. Just introduce config option for each virtualization functionality. That's it. > My apologies for the late reply I didn't see this thread until > just a couple of minutes ago. linux-kernel can be hard to > follow when you aren't cc'd. > > > Patches hopefully sometime in the next 24hours. So hopefully > conversation can be carried forward in a productive manner. Ok. I will remake them either :) 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/