Message-ID: <442449F8.4050808@sw.ru>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 22:35:20 +0300
From: Kirill Korotaev <dev@sw.ru>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050715)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
       xemul@sw.ru, haveblue@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       herbert@13thfloor.at, devel@openvz.org, serue@us.ibm.com,
       sam@vilain.net
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] Virtualization of UTS
References: <44242B1B.1080909@sw.ru> <44242CE7.3030905@sw.ru> <m18xqzk6cy.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
In-Reply-To: <m18xqzk6cy.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1211
Lines: 26

>> This patch introduces utsname namespace in system, which allows to have
>> different utsnames on the host.
>> Introduces config option CONFIG_UTS_NS and uts_namespace structure for this.
> 
> Ok.  It looks like we need to resolve the sysctl issues before we merge
> either patch, into the stable kernel.
I disagree with you. Right now we can have sysctl and proc for init 
namespaces only.
And when sysctl and proc are virtualized somehow, we can fix all these.
I simply don't expect /proc and sysctl to be done quickly. As we have 
very different approaches. And there is no any consensus. Why not to 
commit working/agreed parts then?

> We also need to discuss the system call interface, as without one
> the functionality is unusable :)
I also don't see why it can be separated. There is an API in namespaces, 
and how it is mapped into syscalls is another question. At least it 
doesn't prevent us from commiting virtualization itself, agree?

Thanks,
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/