Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030216AbWBGWns (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Feb 2006 17:43:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030215AbWBGWnn (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Feb 2006 17:43:43 -0500 Received: from watts.utsl.gen.nz ([202.78.240.73]:61341 "EHLO mail.utsl.gen.nz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030216AbWBGWnW (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Feb 2006 17:43:22 -0500 Message-ID: <43E9227C.70200@vilain.net> Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 11:43:08 +1300 From: Sam Vilain User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051013) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: 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> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.92.1.0 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: 2398 Lines: 56 Eric W. Biederman wrote [note: quoting sections out of order]: > Sam Vilain writes: >>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) >>I can't think of any real use cases where you would specifically want A) >>without B). > You misrepresent my approach. ok, after reading more of your post, agreed. > What user interface to export is a debate worth having. This is the bit that needs a long period of prototyping and experimental use IMHO. So in essence, we're agreeing on that point. > First there is a huge commonality in the code bases between the > different implementations and I have already gotten preliminary > acceptance from the vserver developers, that my approach is sane. The > major difference is what user interface does the kernel export, > and I posted my user interface. > Second I am not trying to just implement a form of virtualizing PIDs. > Heck I don't intend to virtualize anything. The kernel has already > virtualized everything I require. I want to implement multiple > instances of the current kernel global namespaces. All I want is > to be able to use the same name twice in user space and not have > a conflict. Right, well, I think our approaches might have more in common than I previously thought. Indeed, it seems that at least one of the features of Linux-VServer I am preparing for consideration for inclusion into Linus' tree are your work :-). > Beyond getting multiple instance of all of the kernel namespaces > (which is the hard requirement for migration) my approach is to > see what is needed for projects like vserver and vps and see how > their needs can be met as well. ok, but the question is - doesn't this just constitute a refactoring once the stable virtualisation code is in? I'm just a bit nervous about trying to refactor-approach-and-concepts-as-we-go. But look, I'll take a closer look at your patches, and see if I can merge with you anyhow. Thanks for the git repo! Sam. - 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/