Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751265AbWB0Vfz (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:35:55 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751406AbWB0Vfz (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:35:55 -0500 Received: from e35.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.153]:26091 "EHLO e35.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751265AbWB0Vfy (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:35:54 -0500 Subject: Re: Which of the virtualization approaches is more suitable for kernel? From: Dave Hansen To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: Kirill Korotaev , Linus Torvalds , Rik van Riel , Linux Kernel Mailing List , devel@openvz.org, Andrey Savochkin , Alexey Kuznetsov , Stanislav Protassov , serue@us.ibm.com, frankeh@watson.ibm.com, clg@fr.ibm.com, mrmacman_g4@mac.com, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, Herbert Poetzl , Andrew Morton In-Reply-To: References: <43F9E411.1060305@sw.ru> <1141062132.8697.161.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 13:35:48 -0800 Message-Id: <1141076148.10105.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1864 Lines: 50 On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 14:14 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > I like the namespace nomenclature. (It can be shorted to _space or _ns). > In part because it shortens well, and in part because it emphasizes that > we are *just* dealing with the names. When I was looking at this, I was pretending to be just somebody looking at sysv code, with no knowledge of containers or namespaces. For a person like that, I think names like _space or _ns are pretty much not an option, unless those terms become as integral to the kernel as things like kobjects. > You split the resolution at just ipc_msgs. When I really think it should > be everything ipcs deals with. This was just the first patch. :) > Performing the assignment inside the tasklist_lock is not something we > want to do in do_fork(). Any particular reason why? There seem to be a number of things done in there that aren't _strictly_ needed under the tasklist_lock. Where would you do it? > So it looks like a good start. There are a lot of details yet to be filled > in, proc, sysctl, cleanup on namespace release. (We can still provide > the create destroy methods even if we don't hook the up). Yeah, I saved shm for last because it has the largest number of outside interactions. My current thoughts are that we'll need _contexts or _namespaces associated with /proc mounts as well. > I think in this case I would put the actual namespace structure > definition in util.h, and just put a struct ipc_ns in sched.h. Ahhh, as in struct ipc_ns; And just keep a pointer from the task? Yeah, that does keep it quite isolated. -- Dave - 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/