Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965099AbWBGOdk (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Feb 2006 09:33:40 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965103AbWBGOdk (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Feb 2006 09:33:40 -0500 Received: from ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com ([166.70.28.69]:48268 "EHLO ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965099AbWBGOdj (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Feb 2006 09:33:39 -0500 To: Kirill Korotaev Cc: Sam Vilain , Rik van Riel , Kirill Korotaev , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Hubertus Franke , clg@fr.ibm.com, haveblue@us.ibm.com, greg@kroah.com, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, serue@us.ibm.com, arjan@infradead.org, kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, saw@sawoct.com, devel@openvz.org, Dmitry Mishin , Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction References: <43E7C65F.3050609@openvz.org> <43E83E8A.1040704@vilain.net> <43E889B6.5030002@sw.ru> From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 07:31:33 -0700 In-Reply-To: <43E889B6.5030002@sw.ru> (Kirill Korotaev's message of "Tue, 07 Feb 2006 14:51:18 +0300") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2045 Lines: 48 Kirill Korotaev writes: >>>> We are never going to form a consensus if all of the people doing >>>> implementations don't talk. >>> >>> Speaking of which - it would be interesting to get Kirill's >>> comments on Eric's patchset ;) > I'll do comment. Thank you I will look forward to your comments. >>> Once we know what's good and bad about both patchsets, we'll >>> be a lot closer to knowing what exactly should go upstream. > I'm starting to think that nothing in upstream can be better for all of us :) In a thread voicing the concerns for maintaining out of tree patches that is a natural concern. >> Let's compare approaches of patchsets before the patchsets themselves. >> It seems to be, should we: >> A) make a general form of virtualising PIDs, and hope this assists >> later virtualisation efforts (Eric's patch) >> B) make a general form of containers/jails/vservers/vpses, and layer >> PID virtualisation on top of it somewhere (as in openvz, vserver) > > >> I can't think of any real use cases where you would specifically want A) >> without B). > Exactly! All these patches for A) look weird for me without containers itself. A > try to make half-solution which is bad. I am willing to contend that my approach also leads to a complete solution. In fact I believe my network virtualization has actually gone much farther than yours. Although I admit there is still some work to do before the code is in shape to be merged. You notice in the kernel there is also not a struct process? To me having a container structure while an obvious approach to the problem seems to add unnecessary policy to the kernel. Lumping together the implementation of multiple instances of different namespaces in a way that the implementation does not require. Eric - 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/